Legal Opinion

Hild Floor MacHine Co. v. Rudolph

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 28, 1944No. Appeal, 8PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, P. J.,

The court below struck off the claim of exemption filed by Herman Fairbanks, one of the defendants in this attachment in execution, because it was not made to the sheriff, nor filed in court, within a reasonable time after he entered his appearance to the attachment, and in consequence costs in further proceedings had been incurred. See Bair v. Steinman, 52 Pa. 423. Fairbanks appealed to this court.

In his appeal he assigns two grounds for reversal of the order of the court below: (1) That the writ of attachment was not served on him. (2) That he made seasonable claim…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bauman v. BittnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  2. Bancord v. ParkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
  3. Harlan v. E. D. Haines & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
  4. Bair v. SteinmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1866
  5. Landis v. LyonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1872

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Finberg v. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
  2. Jefferson Bank v. J. Roy Morris and Scanforms, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  3. Finberg v. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
  4. Finberg v. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API