Spencer v. Bloom
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 96, July T., 1891, by plaintiffs L. W. Spencer et al., trading as L. W. Spencer & Co., from judgment of C. P., Clearfield Co., May T., 1891, No. 362, quashing attachment against defendant, Robert Bloom.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 96, July T., 1891, by plaintiffs L. W. Spencer et al., trading as L. W. Spencer & Co., from judgment of C. P., Clearfield Co., May T., 1891, No. 362, quashing attachment against defendant, Robert Bloom. Appeal by defendant from the judgment of a justice of the peace on attachment under the act of July 12, 1842. The affidavit upon which the justice issued the attachment was made by L. W. Spencer, of the firm of L. W. Spencer & Co., and averred: “ that Robert Bloom is justly indebted to them in the sum of $129.78, for goods and merchandise, sold and delivered by the deponent to the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chiee Justice Paxson,
The affidavit in this case, upon which the attachment was issued, is more specific than that in Gates v. Bloom decided herewith. [The next case.] It charges the fraud in the language of the act of 1842, which would seem to be sufficient, under the authority of Gosline v. Place, 32 Pa. 520, where it was held: “ That it is sufficient that the affidavit set forth a case of fraud in general terms ; it is enough, in the first instance, that it show probable cause to the satisfaction of the judge, for, on the hearing, the defendant may, on oath, deny all the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gosline v. PlaceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Berger v. Smull & SonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
3Cited by3 opinions
- C. M. Hapgood Shoe Co. v. SauppSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Brown v. Erie Railroad, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Warren County1926
- Commonwealth v. StawaszLuzerne County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1926