Lewis v. James
Decision Date | 21 December 1932 |
Docket Number | 2133 of 1931 |
Citation | 19 Pa. D. & C. 16 |
Parties | Lewis v. James |
Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Petition to set aside service of summons and return.
S Harold Grossman and L. Pat. McGrath, for plaintiff.
Moorhead & Knox, for defendant.
This case is before the court on defendant's rule to set aside service of summons and return thereof.
On November 24, 1931, an action in trespass was instituted by the plaintiff to recover damages alleged to have resulted from an automobile accident that occurred in Allegheny County, Pa. The defendant is a resident of the State of Oklahoma. On December 16, 1931, the writ was returned by the Sheriff of Allegheny County. The sheriff's return in this case reads as follows:
Attached to the return of the service is the unopened letter which was sent to the defendant at the wrong address and returned by the post office. The letter had been addressed to the defendant at No. 1109 Indian Drive, Oklahoma City, Okla., and it is contended that the defendant's address was Enid, Okla.
An appearance d. b. e. was entered for the defendant and this court is now called upon to determine whether the service of process in this case and the return of such service should not be set aside. The question for consideration is whether the service of process in this case and the return of such service was sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the county court over the defendant.
The defendant is a nonresident of the State of Pennsylvania. Service must be had upon him by virtue of statutory authority: Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565.
The Act of May 14, 1929, P. L. 1721, as amended by the Act of April 24, 1931, P. L. 50, provides for the service of process in an action against a nonresident owner or operator of a motor vehicle as follows:
The act directs that " the registered mail return receipt of such defendant shall be attached to and made a part of the return of service of such process." In the present case the registered mail return receipt of the defendant was not and could not have been attached to and made a part of the return of service. The court is of the opinion that the provision in the statute requiring the return receipt of the defendant to be attached is mandatory. In Wuchter v Pizzutti, 276 U.S. 13, a New Jersey statute providing for service of process upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial