McLeod v. Hyman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 139, Jan. T., 1922, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1921, No. 2, making absolute rule to dissolve foreign attachment, in case of J. A. McLeod, to the use of Palmetta Guano Corporation, v. A. Hyman, otherwise known as Abram Hyman, and Peoples National Fire Ins. Co., garnishee. Buie to dissolve foreign attachment. Errors assigned were (1) reinstating rule to discharge and (2) making rule absolute, quoting record.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Moschziskee,
The order dissolving the foreign attachment, here appealed from, is well sustained in the opinion of the learned court below, which we adopt and direct to be published in connection herewith.
The points argued before us, not covered by the opinion just adopted, need but little discussion. In answer to the argument that, as defendant appeared by counsel, therefore, all parties are in court and the purpose of the attachment has been served, it is sufficient to say there is nothing upon the record to indicate any such appearance, either formally or…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Macklin v. Kaiser Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 1946
- Konopka Et Ux. v. McAteerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Pottash v. Albany Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- People v. HernandezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- General Maintenance Engineers, Inc. v. Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.