Hollingsworth v. Hamelin
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THE defendant having absconded, a domestic attachment issued against him at the suit of the plaintiff, and the auditors, under that process, having advertised that all persons, who had demands, should send in their accounts, in a reasonable time afterwards, made a dividend among the creditors that filed their claims.
Read the full summary
THE defendant having absconded, a domestic attachment issued against him at the suit of the plaintiff, and the auditors, under that process, having advertised that all persons, who had demands, should send in their accounts, in a reasonable time afterwards, made a dividend among the creditors that filed their claims. Previously to issuing the domestic attachment, the defendant was indebted to the Commonwealth for duties upon a cargo imported, and having given bond to Sharp Delany (who was the collector, but not so named in the bond,) a writ was thereupon issued against him, but was returned…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
unanimously decided, that, on these facts, the Commonwealth was entitled to no preference.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hollingsworth v. HamelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1785