Legal Opinion

Armstrong & Co. v. Irizarry

Supreme Court of Puerto Rico

Decided June 17, 1921No. 2248Published

Appeal from the District Court of Ponce in an Action of Debt. The facts are stated in tlie opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hutchison

Wilfredo Irizarry y Bodríguez and Juan Bautista Torres, as tutor of the minors Manuel Angel and Marta Beatriz Iri-zarry y Bracero, moved to quash an attachment and, claim*564ing. to represent the estate of Manuel Irizarry Lugo, appeal from an order which reads as follows: -

“The court hereby sustains in part the motion of the defendant in this case of March 29, 1920, and therefore annuls the return to the notice of attachment, but not the attachment itself, the plaintiff being authorized to serve the notice of said attachment according to law, if said notice should be legally necessary in this…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Kohler v. AgassizCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Hathaway v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  3. Hale Bros. v. MillikenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Farwell v. MurrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Jones v. Hygienic Soap Granulator Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905

6 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