Ingram v. Orangers
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 257, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1906, No. 1,891, dissolving attachment under act of 1869,’ in case of Charles Ingram and Alfred Armitage, trading as Armitage Brothers, v. Charles C. Orangers. Motion fo quash appeal.
1Opinion of the Court
'Per Curiam,
This is a rule to sho,w cause why the plaintiff’s appeal from an order dissolving their attachment issued under the Act of March *31717,1869, P. L. 8, should not be quashed. It is apparent from the appellants’ answer to this rule that the matter complained of is, not that the court did not have jurisdiction to dissolve the attachment, nor that there is any irregularity in the proceedings, but that the court erred in not talcing a different view of the evidence. But the appeal in such a case brings up nothing but the record proper, which does not include the evidence on which the court…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hoppes v. Houtz, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1890
- Hall v. OysterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Wetherald v. ShupeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- Lafferty v. CorcoranSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Werner v. GrossSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sobern v. LiepiczSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Steinman v. KreiderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911