Opinion
November 25, 1936.
December 7, 1936.
Practice — Process — Sheriff's return — Verification — Sufficiency of return — Acts of July 9, 1901, P. L. 614, and April 3, 1903, P. L. 139(e).
On appeal from an order discharging rules obtained by defendant to set aside and strike off the sheriff's return of service of summons, it was held that an amended return, sworn to before the prothonotary, was in compliance with the Act of July 9, 1901, P. L. 614, amended by the Act of April 3, 1903, P. L. 139(e).
Before KEPHART, C. J. SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
Appeal, No. 389, Jan. T., 1936, by defendant, from order of C. P. Bradford Co., May T., 1936, No. 199, in case of Addie A. Rosengrant v. Frank Martz Coach Company. Order affirmed.
Rules to set aside and strike off sheriff's return of service of summons.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Order entered discharging rules, opinion by CULVER, P. J. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was discharge of rule.
John P. Vallilee, of Schrier Vallilee, for appellant. Wm. P. Wilson and J. Roy Lilley, for appellee, were not heard.
Argued November 25, 1936.
Appellant challenges a return of service. This return was the result of a petition to the court below to permit the sheriff to amend the return theretofore filed. Under the order granting amendment, the sheriff filed an amended return in conformity with the prayer. The court below treated as the amended return the petition, which had been verified before a notary public. Through immemorial usage, in most districts, the sheriff swears to his return before an officer of the court. Our research shows that there is no law in Pennsylvania which requires general verification of a sheriff's return. However this may be, the return as amended was sworn to before the prothonotary and any objections as to verification are therefore eliminated. The amended return, though somewhat confusing, is in compliance with the statute: Act of July 9, 1901, P. L. 614, as amended by the Act of April 3, 1903, P. L. 139 (e); see Shamokin L. C. Co. v. Line Mt. Coal Co., 85 Pa. Super. 222; Rittenberg v. Stein Specht, 97 Pa. Super. 554.
The order of the court below is affirmed at appellant's cost.