Smarr v. Shestok

Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas

Smarr v. Shestok

10 Pa. D. & C. 312, 1927 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 391

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County

DecidedApril 4, 1927

DocketNo. 21

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Pa. D. & C. 312 (Smarr v. Shestok) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smarr v. Shestok, 10 Pa. D. & C. 312, 1927 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 391 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Koch, J.,

Although the transcript imports that the summons was personally served upon the defendant, the defendant avers, as a reason for this rule, that he was not served; that he had no knowledge of the suit or judgment until the sheriff of this county levied upon his land under a fi. fa. issued upon the judgment, and, further, that he is not indebted to the plaintiff. But all these averments are denied by the plaintiff in his answer to the petition for the rule.

An examination of the transcript shows that the proceeding before the justice of the peace was regular in all respects, and it must, therefore, stand until its verity is attacked in some other way. We have no jurisdiction to open the judgment nor to strike it from the record. When error is committed by the magistrate, the remedy is either by appeal or certiorari. If there was no service of process, the constable’s return could have been contradicted under a writ of certiorari: Dermody v. McGee, 6 D. & C. 552.

The rule is discharged.

Prom M. M. Burke, Shenandoah, Pa.

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

Koch, J.,

Although the transcript imports that the summons was personally served upon the defendant, the defendant avers, as a reason for this rule, that he was not served; that he had no knowledge of the suit or judgment until the sheriff of this county levied upon his land under a fi. fa. issued upon the judgment, and, further, that he is not indebted to the plaintiff. But all these averments are denied by the plaintiff in his answer to the petition for the rule.

An examination of the transcript shows that the proceeding before the justice of the peace was regular in all respects, and it must, therefore, stand until its verity is attacked in some other way. We have no jurisdiction to open the judgment nor to strike it from the record. When error is committed by the magistrate, the remedy is either by appeal or certiorari. If there was no service of process, the constable’s return could have been contradicted under a writ of certiorari: Dermody v. McGee, 6 D. & C. 552.

The rule is discharged.

Prom M. M. Burke, Shenandoah, Pa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Pa. D. & C. 312, 1927 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smarr-v-shestok-pactcomplschuyl-1927.