Bovaird & Seyfang Manufacturing Co. v. Ferguson

Citations

• 215 Pa. 235
• 64 A. 513
• 1906 Pa. LEXIS 771

Syllabus

<p>Practice, C. P. — Summons—Alias summons — Pluries summons — Statute of limitations.</p> <p>Where a summons in assumpsit on promissory notes is issued within six years from the maturity of the note, and returned non est inventus, and an alias summons is issued within six years from the return of the original summons, and is also returned non est inventus, and a pluries summons is issued and returned served after the expiration of six years from the return day of the original process, but within six years from the return of the alias the action is not barred by the statute of limitations.</p> <p>In such a case when the alias summons was returned unserved, the original process was continued, but not for a longer period from the return of the alias than the cause of action would have continued if the original summons had not been issued. Neither the issue of the alias summons nor the pluries summons constituted a new suit.</p> <p>A creditor is not bound to resort to any particular jurisdiction to sue his debtor. While he must bring his suit within the statutory period, he can sue wherever he pleases, taking, of course, the chance of finding the debtor and having him served with the process.</p> <p>Where a suit is brought in the domicile of a cx-editor, and is kept alive by the issue of alias and pluries summonses properly returned, the debtor cannot complain that for ten years prior to the issue of the pluries summons, the creditor knew that he had lived in another county.</p> <p>Affidavit of defense — Promissory notes — Practice—Payment.</p> <p>In an action upon promissory notes an affidavit of defense is sufficient which avers that the defendant was employed by another person to drill oil and gas wells; that in the pi'osecution of this work defendant needed certain materials and supplies; that the plaintiff refused to sell the defendant such supplies, but did sell them on the faith an'd credit of his employer, who was to pay for them deducting them from defendant’s