Darlington v. Watson
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 49, Oct. T., 1911, by defendant, from order of C. P. Chester Co., Jan. T., 1911, No. 41, discharging rule to set aside attachment in case of Harvey Darlington v. William H. Watson and Emlen V. Faucett, Garnishee. Rule to set aside attachment. Before Hemphill, P. J. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned was order discharging the rule.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
The proviso to sec. 5 of the Act of April 15, 1845, P. L. 459, reads: “That the wages of any laborer, or the salary of any person in public or private employment, shall not be liable to attachment in the hands of the employer.” The question for decision is whether this clause protects from attachment, as a debt due the father, the wages earned by his unemancipated minor child as a domestic servant in the family of another. The question was raised by the application of the father to set aside the attachment, and the case comes here by appeal from the order denying the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Smith v. BrookeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
- Heebner v. ChaveSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
- Ely v. StantonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888