Watson v. Watson

Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas

Watson v. Watson

40 Pa. D. & C.2d 395, 1966 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 112

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County

DecidedMay 27, 1966

Docketno. 437

StatusPublished

This text of 40 Pa. D. & C.2d 395 (Watson v. Watson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Watson v. Watson, 40 Pa. D. & C.2d 395, 1966 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 112 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Shughart, P. J.,

— The complaint in the above action was served outside the Commonwealth by registered mail with instructions that it be delivered to the addressee only. Proof of service was supplied by an affidavit of service, but at the hearing, there was no testimony that the signature on the return receipt was that of defendant. Such proof of defendant’s signature is required: Goodrich-Am. §1124(a) — 12; Peters v. Peters, 12 D. & C. 2d 373, 8 Cumb. 36; Mickley v. Mick[396]*396ley, 6 Adams 26; Kent v. Kent, 37 D. & C. 2d 792; Shomper v. Shomper, 7 Cumb. 174.

Since it is quite likely that proof of defendant’s signature on the return receipt card can be furnished, the matter will be referred back to the master for further hearing.

Order of Court

And now, May 27, 1966, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing opinion, this matter is referred back to the master hereinbefore appointed for further action consistent with the foregoing opinion.

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

Shughart, P. J.,

— The complaint in the above action was served outside the Commonwealth by registered mail with instructions that it be delivered to the addressee only. Proof of service was supplied by an affidavit of service, but at the hearing, there was no testimony that the signature on the return receipt was that of defendant. Such proof of defendant’s signature is required: Goodrich-Am. §1124(a) — 12; Peters v. Peters, 12 D. & C. 2d 373, 8 Cumb. 36; Mickley v. Mick[396]*396ley, 6 Adams 26; Kent v. Kent, 37 D. & C. 2d 792; Shomper v. Shomper, 7 Cumb. 174.

Since it is quite likely that proof of defendant’s signature on the return receipt card can be furnished, the matter will be referred back to the master for further hearing.

Order of Court

And now, May 27, 1966, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing opinion, this matter is referred back to the master hereinbefore appointed for further action consistent with the foregoing opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 Pa. D. & C.2d 395, 1966 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-watson-pactcomplcumber-1966.