Opinion by
Appellant complains that his judgment against defendant, described as A. Weinfeld & Son, was stricken off. The court below gave no reason for its action, nor does appellee’s brief supply any, though it suggests that a suit against A. Weinfeld & Son names no defendant.
An examination of the record shows tha.t on July 9, 1923, a summons in assumpsit was duly issued and that it was returned by the sheriff: “Served A. Weinfeld and Son, the within named defendants, trading &c., by handing personally July 10th, 1923, a true and attested copy of the within writ, to A. Weinfeld, one of the within named defendant firm, trading &c., at No. 262 S. 2nd Street, in the County of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania.” That return concludes the parties: Paper Co. v. Coke Co.,
Thereafter the rule on plaintiff was taken to show cause why the judgment should not be stricken off for “invalidity and irregularity appearing on the face of the record” and was made absolute. An examination of the record shows that action cannot be sustained. There is a valid return of personal service upon A. Weinfeld & Son, defendant, by serving A. Weinfeld, a member of the defendant firm, together with proof of service of a copy of the statement of claim and notice to file an affidavit
*182
of defense, and judgment pursuant to the statute. That judgment is not invalid because defendant was sued by a firm name or without naming the partners, (if there were any) individually. “A suit against a partnership in the firm name only, without naming the individual partners, will support a verdict, and judgment, and execution against partnership property: Seitz v. Buffum,
The order striking off judgment is reversed and the judgment is reinstated.