White v. Thielens
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 3, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term, 1883, No. 374. This suit was commenced by an attachment under the Act of March 17, 1869, by Emil Thielens and George F. Hall, trading as Thielens & Co., against Edward White et al., trading as E. White & Sons. The affidavit of the plaintiff's, on which the attachment issued, averred fraudulent concealment of property by the defendants.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 3, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term, 1883, No. 374. This suit was commenced by an attachment under the Act of March 17, 1869, by Emil Thielens and George F. Hall, trading as Thielens & Co., against Edward White et al., trading as E. White & Sons. The affidavit of the plaintiff's, on which the attachment issued, averred fraudulent concealment of property by the defendants. A rule to dissolve the attachment was issued, under which voluminous testimony was taken, and the court, of its own motion, referred the same to a Master to report the facts.…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Mercur
We have no doubt as to the constitutionality of the Act of 17th March, 1869, relating to the commencement of actions by attachment against fraudulent debtors. It works no denial of a trial by jury for the ascertainment of the alleged indebtedness. If the alleged fraud is not sustained the attachment may be dissolved. Yet if there has been a service on the defendant the suit goes on: Sharpless v. Ziegler, 11 Norris, *176467; Biddle v. Black, 3 Out., 380. If just cause existed for the attachment of the property, it is because it would be liable to execution after the judgment is obtained. The…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Greene County v. Southern Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Locey v. Sterling Motor Truck Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Slingluff v. SislerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- In re Sickman & GlennDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1907