R. M. Kinsloe & Son v. Davis
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals Nos. 445 and 446, Jan. T., 1894, by garnishee, from orders of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1892, Nos. 1180 and 1181, entering judgments against garnishee on answers. Attachment execution. Rule for judgment upon answers.
Read the full summary
Appeals Nos. 445 and 446, Jan. T., 1894, by garnishee, from orders of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1892, Nos. 1180 and 1181, entering judgments against garnishee on answers. Attachment execution. Rule for judgment upon answers. From the record it appeared that upon judgments entered by the plaintiffs against Thomas B. Davis and William S. Davis respectively, attachment executions were issued and served, in which the Pennsylvania Railroad Company was summoned as garnishee. Interrogatories in attachment in the usual form were filed in each case, and also the following special…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
The judgment in this case was entered “ on answers ” made by the garnishee. The complaint now made is that the answers were misunderstood, or their legal effect mistaken, by the court below. The plaintiff alleged that the railroad company was indebted to Thos. B. Davis, the defendant, and sought to reach the alleged debt by an attachment execution in which the railroad company was made garnishee. Interrogatories were served and the answers on which the judgment was entered were made in response to them. These answers deny any indebtedness to the defendant and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Mamlin v. GenoeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Fairfax v. Savings BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1938
- Ogle v. BarronSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Mamlin v. GenoeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939