Mulholland v. Wood, Brown & Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 210, July T., 1894, by Henry S. Grove, from order of C. P. No. 8, Phila. Co., June T., 1894, No. 345, making absolute a rule for judgment against garnishee. Attachment execution.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 210, July T., 1894, by Henry S. Grove, from order of C. P. No. 8, Phila. Co., June T., 1894, No. 345, making absolute a rule for judgment against garnishee. Attachment execution. From the record it appeared that Wood, Brown & Co. employed plaintiff and other traveling salesmen under the form of written contract set forth in the judgment note which was entered in this case, and of which the following is a copy: “$50.03 Philadelphia, May 21st, 1894. “We hereby acknowledge ourselves to be indebted to John W. Mulholland in the sum of Fifty x§t> Dollars for labor and services rendered…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Fell,
The proceedings in this case were designed to raise the single question whether certain creditors of Wood, Brown & Co. are entitled under the provisions of the act of May 12,1891, to a preference for the amounts due them for wages. The garnishee is the assignee of the defendants for the benefit of their credit*489ors, büt as a decision of the question raised is desired by all parties in interest no objection has been made to the manner in which the plaintiff attempted to enforce the right claimed. The contract on which the claim is based is in writing as follows : “ I,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sproul v. MurraySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
3Cited by9 opinions
- Walker's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Leinbach Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Hand v. CookNevada Supreme Court · 1907
- In re GreenewaldDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1900
- McCracken v. SlemmerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.