Clark v. Wilson
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
This was a rule upon the plaintiff [Clark’s executor] to show his cause of action, and why the foreign attachment, which had been issued, should not be dissolved.
Read the full summary
This was a rule upon the plaintiff [Clark’s executor] to show his cause of action, and why the foreign attachment, which had been issued, should not be dissolved. The plaintiff showed cause, by producing the affidavit of John E. Smith, in which he swears; that, on the 31st August, 1805, a covenant was entered into between the defendant and the deponent as agent of James Clark, the testator, at London, a copy of which is annexed to the affidavit; and that, in pursuance thereof, the ship Portsmouth, therein named, took on board, at Portsmouth, from the defendant, such lawful goods as the…
1Opinion of the CourtWashington, Circuit Justice
Various reasons have been assigned why this attachment should be dissolved, of which two only will Re particularly examined. The first is. that this action is brought to recover unliquidat-ed damages, which, it is contended, cannot be the subject of a foreign attachment under the law of this state. This subject was very much considered in the case of Fisher v. Consequa [Case No. 4,816], cited at the bar; and although we do not think that the court, in that ease, gave too liberal a construction to the attachment law, we should nevertheless examine the ground with great caution, before we make…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Showen v. J. L. Owens Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1909
- Coats v. ArthurSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. WilsonOhio Court of Appeals · 1931
- Welsh v. WoodsHawaii Supreme Court · 1963