Roberts v. Hugg
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THIS was a foreign attachment to Dec. term, 1R37, No. GO, .Roberts, and others, against Hugg and Bell, copartners. The sheriff’s return was “ summoned Hugg, and as to Bell attached; and summoned Durden B. Carter et al. as garnishees,” Dec. 6, 1839, affidavit of cause of action filed, and Dec. 16,1837, a copy of promissory note filed.
Read the full summary
THIS was a foreign attachment to Dec. term, 1R37, No. GO, .Roberts, and others, against Hugg and Bell, copartners. The sheriff’s return was “ summoned Hugg, and as to Bell attached; and summoned Durden B. Carter et al. as garnishees,” Dec. 6, 1839, affidavit of cause of action filed, and Dec. 16,1837, a copy of promissory note filed. Nov. 24th, 1838, narr. filed and judgment was entered for want of an affidavit of defence against defendant Bell, and for want of an appearance against defendant Hugg, January 29, 1839, Bell entered special bail, and the attach-merit was dissolved. Defendant Bell…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.—
The act of 28th March, 1835, does not comprehend absent defendants not actually served with process, and who were not in court, until after the expiration of the time allowed to file an affidavit of defence, (Stroud's Purd. tit. Courts.) The 72d section of the act of 13th June, 1837, (ibid tit. Foreign Attachment^) allowing the .plaintiff to proceed as in case of capias, is not inconsistent with this view, because he is to proceed “ in the manner hereinbefore provided,” which embraces the right of the defendant to put in bail and dissolve the attachment at any time before money…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Grant v. HickcoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870