Tesaurov.Chestnut Corporation

Superior Court of PennsylvaniaNov 11, 1959
190 Pa. Super. 559 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1959)
190 Pa. Super. 559155 A.2d 630

September 14, 1959.

November 11, 1959.

Practice — Judgments — Opening — Judgment for failure to file answer — Service by registered mail upon domestic corporation — Evidence.

In a proceeding to open judgment entered for failure to file an answer to plaintiff's complaint in assumpsit, in which it appeared that defendant was a Pennsylvania corporation, with its registered office at a stated address; that service on defendant could not be had, and service was made on the Secretary of the Commonwealth by registered mail and upon defendant in a like manner, but as to the latter the return was "not known"; that defendant averred, inter alia, that plaintiff could have advised defendant's agent or its counsel of the institution of suit and acted in bad faith in obtaining leave to serve the Secretary of the Commonwealth on the averment of inability to locate defendant; that from plaintiff's answer it appeared that the agent in question no longer represented defendant and could give no address save defendant's registered office, that plaintiff did not remember the name of counsel for defendant, and that plaintiff had no knowledge as to where defendant's president could be reached; and that defendant had engaged in patently obstructive tactics over a long period of time for evasive purposes; it was Held that the order of the court below discharging the rule to open judgment should be affirmed.

Before RHODES, P.J., GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ. (HIRT, J., absent).

Appeal, No. 229, Oct. T., 1959, from order of Municipal Court of Philadelphia County, June T., 1958, No. 797, in case of Don Tesauro v. Chestnut Corporation. Order affirmed.

Same case in court below: 18 Pa. D. C. 2d 649.

Proceeding upon petition of defendant and rule to show cause why judgment entered by default in action of assumpsit should not be opened.

Petition denied and order entered discharging rule, opinion by PIEKARSKI, J. Defendant appealed.

Melvin Alan Bank, with him Bank and Minehart, for appellant.

S. Robert Levant, with him Markovitz, Stern Shusterman, for appellee.


Argued September 14, 1959.


The order of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge PIEKARSKI of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, as reported in 18 Pa. D. C. 2d 649.