Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DEMHARTER v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION PITTSBURGH (04/20/59)

April 20, 1959

DEMHARTER
v.
FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF PITTSBURGH, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 89, March T., 1959, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, No. 2907, in case of L. Demharter et al. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Pittsburgh et al. Decree affirmed.

COUNSEL

Samuel M. Jackson, with him Andrew G. Uncapher, and James C. Larrimer, for appellant.

Louis E. Sensenich, with him H. Reginald Belden, for appellees.

Before Jones, C.j., Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Bok and Mcbride, JJ.

Author: Bok

[ 395 Pa. Page 401]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BOK

After this complaint in equity was filed, local counsel for the corporate defendant filed his appearance in Westmoreland County. Service upon it had been had by the deputized sheriff of Allegheny County at its main place of business in Pittsburgh.

After examining the sheriff's return of service, counsel orally asked leave of the Westmoreland County Court to withdraw his appearance in order that he might file preliminary objections to challenge the court's jurisdiction over the corporate defendant. The court allowed him to withdraw and this was done. Timely preliminary objections were then filed and upon their being dismissed with direction to answer over, this appeal followed.

The two individual defendants have not been heard from.

Although the corporate defendant filed six preliminary objections, it now complains of the dismissal of only the one that has to do with jurisdiction. Further, the court in banc not only upheld the deputized service on defendant in Allegheny County but it upheld jurisdiction because "all other matters pertaining to this dispute were placed in the jurisdiction of this Court." The corporate defendant did not complain of this either, and hence its sole point on appeal is that of the filing and later withdrawal of its counsel's appearance.

Under Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1504(b)(1), "if the subject matter of the action is property within

[ 395 Pa. Page 402]

    the jurisdiction of the court, the plaintiff shall have the right of service upon a defendant in any other ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.