Bair v. Steinman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county. This was an attachment execution, issued December 31st 1863, by George M. Steinman and Charles Regnier, trading as George M. Steinman & Co., against Abraham T. Bair, in which Martin Groff, Jr., was garnishee. The plaintiffs held a judgment against Bair for $158.48, on which they issued this attachment.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county. This was an attachment execution, issued December 31st 1863, by George M. Steinman and Charles Regnier, trading as George M. Steinman & Co., against Abraham T. Bair, in which Martin Groff, Jr., was garnishee. The plaintiffs held a judgment against Bair for $158.48, on which they issued this attachment. On the 1st of January 1864 the sheriff attached all the property of defendant in the hands of Groff; and notified Bair, who made no claim for his exemption. The plaintiffs filed interrogatories which the garnishee answered January 25th…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, May 24th 1866, by
Woodward, C. J.
Though a debtor is entitled to the statutory exemption of $300 worth of his estate as against the process we call attachment execution, he is to obtain it, as in other cases, by demanding it of the officer when the process is served or within a reasonable time thereafter.
The reason why he is held to promptness of demand is that the costs of further proceedings may be saved.
If, as in this instance, he fail to make a demand, a subsequent plea of his rights will not avail him. This was ruled in Strouse’s Executor v. Baker, 8…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hild Floor MacHine Co. v. RudolphSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Cross Bros. v. Abrams, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County1933