M'Carty v. Emlen
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
This cause came before the court on a' case stated. A foreign attachment issued at the suit of Elizabeth Pringle, administratrix of John Pringle, against the said William M’Carty for a debt due by M’Carty in his private capacity to Pringle, returnable, to March term 1793, in the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county.
Read the full summary
This cause came before the court on a' case stated. A foreign attachment issued at the suit of Elizabeth Pringle, administratrix of John Pringle, against the said William M’Carty for a debt due by M’Carty in his private capacity to Pringle, returnable, to March term 1793, in the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county. The attachment was served, and effects attached in the hands of the said George Emlen, who was the debtor of M’Oarty and Cummins in company. ' Previous thereto, the present action was instituted in the Supreme Court to September term 1798, by William M’Carty, as surviving partner…
1Opinion of the Court
The court this term proceeded to deliver their opinions.
M’Kean C. J.
The objection made against the plaintiff, (Mrs. Pringle’s) recovery, are that a suit was pending against Emlen by M’Carty the surviving partner, and that partnership debts must be paid In the first instance. In England, choses in action are attachable by custom, in the inferior courts. The reason why debts put in suit there were not suffered to be attached, arose from the courts of Westminster Hall not permitting proceedings begun before them, to be arrested in their progress by the smaller jurisdictions. But this reason…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Phillips v. CookNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Liverpool, Brazil & River Platte Navigation Co. v. Agar & LelongU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana · 1882
- Miller v. TaylorTexas Supreme Court · 1855
- Ross v. ClarkeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1788