Case Name: Gorman v. Hibernian Building and Loan Association, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1893-01-16
Citations: 154 Pa. 133
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 346
Parties: Gorman v. Hibernian Building and Loan Association, Appellant.
Judges: Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell and Dean, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 154
Pages: 133–134

Head Matter:
Gorman v. Hibernian Building and Loan Association, Appellant.
Practice, G. P. — Service of copy of statement — Judgment.
Where a statement is filed with the pneeipe for the writ, the fact that a copy of the statement was served upon defendant the da.y before service of the writ, is immaterial, and a judgment entered for want of an affidavit of defence will not be stricken off for this reason.
Argued Jan. 4, 1893.
Appeal, No. 346, Jan. T., 1892, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1890, No. 97, discharging rules on plaintiff, William Gorman, to strike off or open judgment.
Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell and Dean, JJ.
Assumpsit for professional services as attorney at law.
From the record it- appeared that Oct. 1,1890, plaintiff issued his writ, and on the same day filed his statement and served a copy upon the secretary of defendant association. On Oct. 2d, the writ was served upon defendant by the sheriff.
On Nov. 29, 1890, proof of service of copy of statement was filed and judgment entered for want of an affidavit of defence. Defendant then took two rules, one to strike off the judgment as irregular, and the other to open it on the ground that the defendant had had no opportunity to present its defence.
The evidence on the hearing was to the effect that the secretary was unfriendly to the association which was about to be dissolved, that counsel for defendant was employed by a member of a committee of the association who had no knowledge of the service of the copy of the statement, and informed his counsel that no other paper than the summons had been served upon him, that counsel subsequently advised that nothing was being done as no copy of the statement had been served, and that the first knowledge counsel had of the service of the copy was when judgment was taken.
The court discharged both rules.
JErrors assigned were (1) entry of judgment; (2,3) discharge of rules.
James M. Beck, Wm. F. JHjarrity with him, for appellant.
Francis H. Grarrett, for appellee.
January 16, 1893:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The judgment in this case was regularly entered, and we find no error in the refusal of the court below, either to strike it off or open it. It appears that the statement of plaintiff's claim had been filed with the prsecipe, and served upon the defendant a few hours before the writ had been served upon it by the sheriff. . The fact that the plaintiff's office boy served the statement before the service of the summons, is not material. There was nothing in it which necessarily misled the defendant. The statement was upon the record of the court, and an examination of it would have disclosed that fact.
Judgment affirmed.