Rivers v. Walker

Rivers v. Walker. Reference. —Practice. For a contrary practice, tbe report, in the present instance, was set aside, on motion of Lewis, in behalf of tbe defendant, opposed by Lnaersoll for tbe plaintiff, In Dunkin v. Galbraith, 1 Bro. 15, it is laid down as a general rule, that where there is a known attorney, notice must be given to that attorney, and not to the party himself; and it was held, in that case, that notice of filing a report of referees might be given to the attorney. But where a rule of court requires notice given to the party, notice to the attorney is not sufficient. Nash v. Gilkeson, 5 S. & R. 352. Even in such case, however, notice to the attorney will be considered good, if he did not expressly object at the time of service. Newlin v. Newlin, 8 S. & R. 41. And see Geyger v. Geyger, 2 Dall. 332. Hutcheson v. Johnson, 1 Binn. 59. Hitner v. Suckley, 2 W. C. C. 465. [MAJORITY] It was ruled in tbis cause, that notice of tbe time and place of tbe meeting of referees, must be served on tbe party bimself, and not on bis attorney ; unless it be otherwise specified in tbe rule of reference. See act 23 March 1877 (P. L. 28), which authorizes a service upon the attorney of n resident defendant. Wilcox v Payne, 88 Penn. St. 154.