No. 166 October Term, 1979, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, at No. 1838 June Term, 1978, Civil Action.
Herbert L. Olivieri, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Alan S. Carpel, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Hester, Hoffman, and Catania, JJ.*fn*
[ 272 Pa. Super. Page 464]
Appellant contends that the lower court should have granted its petition to open or strike the default judgment entered against it because it was never served with a complaint. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the order of the lower court denying appellant's petition and remand for further proceedings.
[ 272 Pa. Super. Page 465]
On June 13, 1978, Liquid Carbonic Corporation (hereinafter "Liquid Carbonic") instituted this action by filing a complaint in assumpsit in which it sought damages from appellant, a Pennsylvania corporation, for an alleged breach of a leasing contract. The docket entries show that the complaint was served on June 21, 1978. The sheriff's return confirms June 21 as the date of service and further indicates that service was made at appellant's place of business.*fn1 Although the deputy sheriff did not specify on the return the name of the individual whom he had served, he did check off a box on the return indicating that he had handed the complaint to an "agent or person for the time being in charge of defendant's office or usual place of business."*fn2 Appellant failed to file an answer to the complaint, and on August 16, 1978, Liquid Carbonic obtained a default judgment in the amount of $12,827.09. Notice of the judgment was sent to appellant by regular mail on the day of entry. Shortly thereafter, Liquid Carbonic obtained a writ of execution, and on September 13, 1978, a deputy sheriff appeared at appellant's business office with a sheriff's levy. Appellant insists that this visit of the deputy sheriff was its first actual notice of the proceedings which Liquid Carbonic had instituted against it. On September 29, 1978, appellant filed its petition to open or strike the default judgment. The case was submitted to the lower court on the basis of affidavits and depositions of appellant's officers and bookkeeper and the deputy sheriff who purportedly served the complaint. On December 19, 1978, the lower court entered an order denying appellant's petition. This appeal followed.
We note at the outset that the lower court correctly denied appellant's request that the default judgment be
[ 272 Pa. Super. Page 466]
Refining Co., supra; Fisher v. Kemble Park, Inc., 186 Pa. Super. 407, 142 A.2d 353 (1958). See also Cobb v. Gray, 269 Pa. Super. 267, 409 A.2d 882 (1979) (affirming lower court's order opening default judgment and allowing the filing of an answer where defendant was not properly served). Accordingly, we must inquire into the accuracy of appellant's contention that it was never served.
Appellant's contention that it was never served with the complaint directly contradicts the representation in the sheriff's return that the complaint was handed to an agent or person for the time being in charge of appellant's place of business. In Hollinger v. Hollinger, 416 Pa. 473, 206 A.2d 1 (1965), our Supreme Court held that, absent fraud, a sheriff's return is conclusive and immune from attack as to facts stated therein of which the sheriff presumptively has personal knowledge. The Court held additionally, however, that the conclusiveness of a return does not extend to facts of which the sheriff does not have personal knowledge. Id., 416 Pa. at 477, 206 A.2d at 3. See generally 1 Goodrich Amram 2d, § 1013(b): 2. In the instant case, the representation that service was made upon an agent or person for the time being in charge of appellant's place of business was not a matter within the personal knowledge of the deputy sheriff who executed the return. Accordingly, we may examine appellant's extrinsic evidence challenging that representation.
Appellant's president, Max Reese, stated in an affidavit that he had extensively questioned appellant's employees and had determined that none of them was served with Liquid Carbonic's complaint on June 21, 1978. Additionally, appellant's secretary, Abraham Cooper, stated in a deposition that he had made similar inquiries of those employees of appellant who were at work on June 21, 1978, and had received similar negative responses. Both Reese and ...