pleas claim in Pennsylvania

1944So, too, at the trial of the appeal in the common pleas no claim or demand may be presented as a set-off, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the justice: Walden v. Berry, 48 Pa. 456 ; Deihm v. Snell, supra; Gittlin v. Slovinac, 93 Pa. Superior Ct. 292, 296 ; Alschuler & Weisz v. Lipkin, 84 Pa. Superior Ct., 349; Lyons v. Barnett, 79 Pa. Superior Ct., 352, 353.

1943So, too, at the trial of the appeal in the common pleas no claim or demand may be presented as a set-off, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the justice: Walden v. Berry, 48 Pa. 456 ; Deihm, v. Snell, supra; Gittlin v. Slovinac, 93 Pa. Superior Ct. 292, 296 ; Alschuler & Weisz v. Lipkin, 84 Pa. Superior Ct. 349 ; Lyons v. Barnett, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 352, 353 .

1944So, too, at the trial of the appeal in the common pleas no claim or demand may be presented as a set-off, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the justice: Walden v. Berry, 48 Pa. 456 ; Deihm v. Snell, supra; Gittlin v. Slovinac, 93 Pa. Superior Ct. 292, 296 ; Alschuler & Weisz v. Lipkin, 84 Pa. Superior Ct., 349; Lyons v. Barnett, 79 Pa. Superior Ct., 352, 353.

1943So, too, at the trial of the appeal in the common pleas no claim or demand may be presented as a set-off, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the justice: Walden v. Berry, 48 Pa. 456 ; Deihm, v. Snell, supra; Gittlin v. Slovinac, 93 Pa. Superior Ct. 292, 296 ; Alschuler & Weisz v. Lipkin, 84 Pa. Superior Ct. 349 ; Lyons v. Barnett, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 352, 353 .

1984Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Schmidt, 57 Pa. Commw. 378 , 426 A.2d 1222 (1981).

1968Although notice sent pursuant to the Eule need not be sent return-receipt requested, our Supreme Court in Dearnley v. Survetnick, 360 Pa. 572 , 63 A. 2d 66 (1949), has read “notice” to mean that such notice was sent as well as received in order to afford a property owner greater protection. 3 Specifically, the court in Dearnley said: “The purpose of the Common Pleas rule[s] is to make sure that actual notice is received by the defendant in the execution, and not only, therefore, must such notice be given by personal service or by registered mail, but an affidavit must be filed so as to establi

1968Although notice sent pursuant to the Eule need not be sent return-receipt requested, our Supreme Court in Dearnley v. Survetnick, 360 Pa. 572 , 63 A. 2d 66 (1949), has read “notice” to mean that such notice was sent as well as received in order to afford a property owner greater protection. 3 Specifically, the court in Dearnley said: “The purpose of the Common Pleas rule[s] is to make sure that actual notice is received by the defendant in the execution, and not only, therefore, must such notice be given by personal service or by registered mail, but an affidavit must be filed so as to establi

1946Nor should support be refused because of the right to ask for alimony in a pending divorce suit: Commonwealth ex rel. v. Maroney, 121 Pa. Superior Ct. 489 .

1946Conversely, an order for alimony pendente lite in the common pleas does not bar a subsequent support order in the quarter sessions: Commonwealth v. MacMaster, 88 Pa. Superior Ct. 37 .

1943So, too, at the trial of the appeal in the common pleas no claim or demand may be presented as a set-off, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the justice: Walden v. Berry, 48 Pa. 456 ; Deihm, v. Snell, supra; Gittlin v. Slovinac, 93 Pa. Superior Ct. 292, 296 ; Alschuler & Weisz v. Lipkin, 84 Pa. Superior Ct. 349 ; Lyons v. Barnett, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 352, 353 .

1943So, too, at the trial of the appeal in the common pleas no claim or demand may be presented as a set-off, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the justice: Walden v. Berry, 48 Pa. 456 ; Deihm, v. Snell, supra; Gittlin v. Slovinac, 93 Pa. Superior Ct. 292, 296 ; Alschuler & Weisz v. Lipkin, 84 Pa. Superior Ct. 349 ; Lyons v. Barnett, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 352, 353 .

1926Co., 180 Pa. 432 , a common pleas rule was in conflict with the equity rules promulgated by this court and was, therefore, without effect.

1926In Kelly v. Pennsylvania Co., 253 Pa. 553 , we were compelled to strike down a rule as to taking judgment for want of a bill of particulars, the Procedure Act of 1887 having dispensed with such bills.