Melloy's Sons v. Deal & Burtis
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 8 OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 329 January Term 1888, Sup. Ct.; court below No. 254 March Term 1886, C. P. No. 3. On February 25,1886, George D. Melloy and others, trading as John M. Melloy’s Sons, brought foreign attachment against H. I. Burtis and A. J. Deal, trading as Deal & Burtis.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 8 OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 329 January Term 1888, Sup. Ct.; court below No. 254 March Term 1886, C. P. No. 3. On February 25,1886, George D. Melloy and others, trading as John M. Melloy’s Sons, brought foreign attachment against H. I. Burtis and A. J. Deal, trading as Deal & Burtis. The writ was returnable to March 1, 1886. On February 25 and 26,1886, Howard S. Janney and others, trading as Janney & Andrews, were served as garnishees, and the writ then returned nihil habent, as to the defendants. On March 8th, the garnishees appeared by counsel. The…
1Dissent
Opinion Dissenting,
Mr. Justice Mitchell :
That Foreman v. Schricon, 8 W. & S. 43, 'was wrongly decided has never been doubtful in the professional mind. The decision overturned the settled previous practice, although that practice had been sustained, even under the act of 1724, by the decision of this court: Morrison v. Wetherill, 8 S. & R. 502. How much more clearly the practice was correct under the act of 1836 than it was under the act of 1724, was demonstrated by the late Chief Justice Sharswood in May v. Sharp, 1 Tr. & Haly, 274, ed. 1867. No answer to his argument has ever been…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kohler v. LuckenbaughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Foreman v. SchriconSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Dennison v. LeechSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848