Legal Opinion

McCloskey v. Northdale Woolen Mills

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 5, 1929No. Appeal, 1PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Sadler,

Plaintiffs, claiming to be creditors of the Northdale Woolen Mills and Schwarz, defendants, issued a writ of foreign attachment seizing certain funds alleged to be due the latter by the Yorkshire Worsted Mills. The garnishee appeared specially for the purpose of quashing or dissolving the writ, as was its right: Turner v. Larkin, 12 Pa. Superior Ct. 284. Indeed, it was its duty to protect the interests of the defendant, having been summoned as a party to the litigation: Keystone Brewing Co. v. Canavan, 221 Pa. 366. It is unnecessary to discuss whether a proceeding…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Pasquinelli v. Southern Macaroni Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Commonwealth ex rel. Wolfe v. ButlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
  3. Cochran v. EldridgeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
  4. Hamberger v. MarcusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  5. Smith v. BrookeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Bell v. RobertsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  2. Badler v. L. Gillarde Sons Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  3. Dunn v. Printing Corporation of AmericaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
  4. Kaiser-Frazer Corp. v. EatonSuperior Court of Delaware · 1952
  5. Pasos v. FerberDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1967

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API