Philadelphia & Reading R. R. v. Snowdon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 304, Jan. T., 1894, by defendant, William H. Snowdon, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1893, No. 10, discharging rule to quash return in foreign attachment, and to set aside judgment. Rule to quash return and set aside judgment in foreign attachment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 304, Jan. T., 1894, by defendant, William H. Snowdon, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1893, No. 10, discharging rule to quash return in foreign attachment, and to set aside judgment. Rule to quash return and set aside judgment in foreign attachment. From the record it appeared that, on Dec. 13,1892, the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Co. commenced an action in C. P. No. 1, of March T., 1893, No. 10, against W. H. Snowdon, to recover the amount of a debt of Snowdon & Rau, by issuing a writ of foreign attachment against certain real estate of the .said W. H.…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
A judgment having been entered against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, the proper remedy of the defendant was by appeal and not by a motion to strike it off. We cannot go into the merits of the contention upon such a motion. Presumably that subject was duly considered by the court below before the judgment was entered. Under the procedure act of 1887 it is a grave question whether an affidavit of defence may not be required after the proceeding by foreign attachment has been converted into an action of assumpsit by a general appearance for the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Frank P. Miller Paper Co. v. Keystone Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Bellah v. PooleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Tobin v. TobinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Highland v. Russell Car & Snow Plow Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Wallis v. MulliganNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1915