Shipley Massingham Co. v. Mutual Drug Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Shipley Massingham Co. v. Mutual Drug Co.

198 A. 639, 329 Pa. 559, 1938 Pa. LEXIS 544

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 29, 1938·No. Appeal, 2·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The Court is unwilling to break the unbending rule as to service of process on a nonresident defendant where the decree prayed for is in personam. See Coleman’s Appeal, 75 Pa. 441; Wallace v. United Electric Co., 211 Pa. 473; Vandersloot v. Pa. Water & Power Co., 259 Pa. 99; Hughes v. Hughes, 306 Pa. 75; Atlantic S. N. Gas Co. v. Whitten, 315 Pa. 529; Gallagher v. Rogan, 322 Pa. 315; Degan v. Kiernan, 326 Pa. 397. The court below followed this rule and the order setting aside the service and dismissing the bill against the nonresident appellees is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

The Court is unwilling to break the unbending rule as to service of process on a nonresident defendant where the decree prayed for is in personam. See Coleman’s Appeal, 75 Pa. 441; Wallace v. United Electric Co., 211 Pa. 473; Vandersloot v. Pa. Water & Power Co., 259 Pa. 99; Hughes v. Hughes, 306 Pa. 75; Atlantic S. N. Gas Co. v. Whitten, 315 Pa. 529; Gallagher v. Rogan, 322 Pa. 315; Degan v. Kiernan, 326 Pa. 397. The court below followed this rule and the order setting aside the service and dismissing the bill against the nonresident appellees is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

Shipley Massingham Co. v. Mutual Drug Co., 198 A. 639, 329 Pa. 559, 1938 Pa. LEXIS 544 (Pa. 1938).

Pincite

198 A. 639 (Shipley Massingham Co. v. Mutual Drug Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related