Smeltz v. Smeltz

Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas

Smeltz v. Smeltz

26 Pa. D. & C. 642, 1936 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 408

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County·Decided January 6, 1936·No. no. 415·Published

Opinion

Houck, J.,

Unfortunately, this record must be returned to the master for noncompliance with Rule 117, which provides, inter alia, as follows:

“Ten days’ written notice of the time and place of taking testimony shall be given by the master to the attorneys for both parties. If there be no appearance for the respondent, the notice shall be given to him or her personally, if possible.”

There was no appearance for respondent, and notice of the hearing to be held on October 9, 1935, was served on respondent personally on October 1, 1935. This was not 10 days’ notice as required by the rule.

And now, January 6, 1936, the record is remanded to the master for further proceedings.

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

Houck, J.,

Unfortunately, this record must be returned to the master for noncompliance with Rule 117, which provides, inter alia, as follows:

“Ten days’ written notice of the time and place of taking testimony shall be given by the master to the attorneys for both parties. If there be no appearance for the respondent, the notice shall be given to him or her personally, if possible.”

There was no appearance for respondent, and notice of the hearing to be held on October 9, 1935, was served on respondent personally on October 1, 1935. This was not 10 days’ notice as required by the rule.

And now, January 6, 1936, the record is remanded to the master for further proceedings.

Smeltz v. Smeltz, 26 Pa. D. & C. 642, 1936 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 408 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1936).

Pincite

26 Pa. D. & C. 642 (Smeltz v. Smeltz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.