Shipman v. Woodbury
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THIS was a foreign attachment issued against the defendant. A domestic attachment subsequently issued against him, and the plaintiff therein subsequently obtained this rule, on the hearing of which in the domestic attachment, read affidavits stating in substance that defendant had for many years been a resident of the city and county of Philadelphia, prior to January, 1837, when he suddenly disappeared, alleging that he intended to go to Missouri, and that he was absent ten…
Read the full summary
THIS was a foreign attachment issued against the defendant. A domestic attachment subsequently issued against him, and the plaintiff therein subsequently obtained this rule, on the hearing of which in the domestic attachment, read affidavits stating in substance that defendant had for many years been a resident of the city and county of Philadelphia, prior to January, 1837, when he suddenly disappeared, alleging that he intended to go to Missouri, and that he was absent ten days and returned without going further than Pittsburgh. The day after he left Philadelphia the foreign attachment was…
1Per curiam
The act prescribing that the defendant whose estate is liable to foreign attachment must be a person “ not residing within this commonwealth,” evidently contemplates a person who is resident out of, although he may be within the commonwealth, except in the county where the writ issues. The act of 1705, sect. 3, uses the words “ not resident, or residing within this province.” The act of 2d March, 1723, sect. 12, uses the words “ not inhabitants of this province.” The rules therefore laid down by the courts, prior to the act of 1836, equally apply at this time. A person going from his settled…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lyle v. ForemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1789