Legal Opinion

H. A. Caesar & Co. v. Banks Bros.

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

Decided February 12, 1926No. 345Published

1Opinion of the Court

Lewis, J.,

This attachment under the Act of March 17,1869, P. L. 8, as amended by the Act of May 24, 1887, P. L. 197, was issued under the caption “H. A. Caesar & Co. v. Banks Brothers, also trading as Quaker City Shade Co.” Rules were granted on plaintiff to show cause why the writ should not be quashed or the attachment dissolved. In the petition for the rules, Albert Banks and Israel Banks set forth as the reasons for quashing or dissolving the attachment, first, “the designation of both parties, plaintiff and defendant, is improper and insufficient to support the action, since neither is a…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Wright v. Eureka Tempered Copper Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  2. Girardi v. Laquin Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  3. McGinnis v. Valvoline Oil Works, Ltd.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  4. Tonge v. Item Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  5. Garman v. GlassSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API