Winrow v. Raymond

4 Pa. 501, 1846 Pa. LEXIS 271
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 15, 1846
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 4 Pa. 501 (Winrow v. Raymond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Winrow v. Raymond, 4 Pa. 501, 1846 Pa. LEXIS 271 (Pa. 1846).

Opinion

Rogers, J.

The practice in this state, commencing at an early period, is on motion to the’ court, at the instance of the defendant, to set aside a sheriff’s return when the writ is defectively served. Bujac, endorsee, v. Morgan, 3 Yeates, 258, is an instance of this kind; and see Kleckner v. The county of Lehigh, 6 Whart. 66, where the same course was pursued without objection. It may in some cases be necessary, for the security of the defendant, who cannot be brought into court except in the manner pointed out by law, &e. The practice is to enter an appearance de bene esse, and ask the judgment of the court as to the legality of the service. Blair v. Weaver, 11 Serg. & Rawle, 84. But this does not extend further than to set aside the sheriff’s return. The writ remains good, and the plaintiff may either discontinue his suit, at his election, rule the sheriff to make a good return, and issue an alias, or sue the sheriff for a false or insufficient return. But the court will not set aside the writ on motion, for this may do great wrong to the plaintiff, who may in that event be barred by the act of limitations. It remains to inquire into the legality of the service. A writ of summons (see sec. 2, act of the 13th of June, 1836) is executed by reading the same in the hearing of the defendant, by giving him notice of its contents, or by a true and attested copy; or if the defendant cannot be conveniently found, by leaving a copy at his dwelling-house in the presence of one or more of the adult members of his family; or if the defendant resides in the family of another, with one of the adult members of the family with which he resides. The act which prescribes the rule, be it observed, nowhere provides for the service óf a summons, by leaving a copy of the writ at the counting-house of the defendant; the mode, as appears by the sheriff’s return, this service was made. It' was therefore an illegal service, and .the sheriff’s return must be set aside. Sheriff’s return set aside.

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

Related

Emery v. Gilkeson
42 Pa. D. & C. 357 (Chester County Court of Common Pleas, 1941)
Hughes v. Hughes
158 A. 874 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)
Rogers v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
99 Pa. Super. 505 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1930)
Lancaster Trust Co. v. Bertz
12 Pa. D. & C. 155 (Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, 1928)
Jeannette v. Roehme
9 Pa. Super. 33 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1898)
Sweeney v. Girolo
26 A. 600 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1893)
Everett v. Niagara Ins.
21 A. 817 (Clinton County Court of Common Pleas, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Pa. 501, 1846 Pa. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winrow-v-raymond-pa-1846.