Schacklett's Appeal
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
This was an appeal from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene county, distributing the proceeds of the sheriff’s sale of the real estate of Robert Jones.' Robert Jones was a resident of Cincinnati, to which place he removed from Greene county. Schacklett & Glyde issued a foreign attachment against him to No. 22 of March term, 1847, which was duly executed on the 18th January, 1847, upon the real estate of the defendant in the county of Greene.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene county, distributing the proceeds of the sheriff’s sale of the real estate of Robert Jones.' Robert Jones was a resident of Cincinnati, to which place he removed from Greene county. Schacklett & Glyde issued a foreign attachment against him to No. 22 of March term, 1847, which was duly executed on the 18th January, 1847, upon the real estate of the defendant in the county of Greene. On the 22d of January, 1847, an appearance by counsel, and pleas were entered for the defendant. At June term, 1847, the cause was set down…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
— It is an undoubted fact that the framers of the act of 1705 intended to exempt land from attachment; but as there was no reason for an exemption, as land was liable to execution as a chattel, and as the language of the act was not imperative, though its details were adapted to cases of garnishment, the courts made no distinction. Nor ought they to have done otherwise; at least they did not. The assertion of counsel in McClenachan v. McCarty, 1 Dal. 376, and Ludlow v. Bingham, 4 Dal. 55, uncontradicted as it was in either case by the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832