Rouss v. Gilliam
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 127, Oct. T., 1918, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Centre Co., May T., 1916, No. 158, dissolving attachment in case of Peter W. Rouss, trading and doing business as Charles Broadway Rouss, v. J. S. Gilliam et al.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 127, Oct. T., 1918, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Centre Co., May T., 1916, No. 158, dissolving attachment in case of Peter W. Rouss, trading and doing business as Charles Broadway Rouss, v. J. S. Gilliam et al. Rule to dissolve attachment under Act of March 17, 1869, P. L. 9. Quigley, P. J., filed the following opinion: On the 13th of April, 1916, the plaintiff filed his praecipe for an attachment under the Fraudulent Debtor’s Act of March 17, 1869, and in pursuance thereof the sheriff of Centre County attached certain personal property ofgthe defendant, consisting of a stock…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Kephart, J.,
An order of the court dissolving, or refusing to dissolve, an attachment under the Act of March 17, 1869, P. L. 9, as amended by the Act of May 24, 1887, P. L. 197, is interlocutory from which an appeal will not lie: Slingluff, Johns & Co. v. Sisler, 193 *597Pa. 264-268. The appeal in the present case is in the nature of a certiorari, and if it could be entertained, the evidence is not before us. Our examination is limited solely to the regularity of the proceeding as shown by the record: Wetherald v. Shupe, 109 Pa. 389; Hoppes v. Houtz, 133 Pa. 34; Lafferty v. Corcoran, 175…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hoppes v. Houtz, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1890
- Hall v. OysterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Wetherald v. ShupeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- Lafferty v. CorcoranSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Slingluff, Johns & Co. v. SislerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.