Hall v. Oyster
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 332, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Elk Co., Sept. T., 1893, No. 171, dissolving an attachment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 332, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Elk Co., Sept. T., 1893, No. 171, dissolving an attachment. Rule to dissolve attachment issued under act of March 17, 1869. The attachment was issued on the affidavit of M. S. Kline, which averred: “ That he is one of the plaintiffs above named ; that D. C. Oyster, Alfred Short and C. R. Early, surviving partners late doing business under the firm name of the Ridgway Bank, are justly indebted to the said Eliza A. Hall, Jerome Powell, W. H. Hyde, C. H. M’Cauley and M. S. Kline, doing business under the firm name of the Elk…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This so called appeal is in fact merely a certiorari, and must *401be so treated. It brings up for review nothing but the record proper, which does not include the evidence on which the court acted in dissolving the attachment. Under the act of 1869, that action of the court below-was a matter within its discretion, and we have nothing before us to show that the discretion was abused: Wetherald v. Shupe, 109 Pa. 389; Black v. Oblander, 15 Atl. Rep. 708; Hoppes v. Houtz, 133 Pa. 34.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellants.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hoppes v. Houtz, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1890
- Wetherald v. ShupeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- Brubaker's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
3Cited by6 opinions
- Slingluff, Johns & Co. v. SislerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Ingram v. OrangersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Werner v. GrossSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Oringer v. Zimmerman, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1955
- Rouss v. GilliamSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.