Lyle v. Foreman
Supreme Court of the United States
This was a Foreign Attachment, which issued returnable to the present term; and, on arguing a rule to shew cause, why the writ should not be quashed, it was proved, that, on the 5th of December, the Defendant was at Lancaster, in his way to Fort Pitt, where he intended to proceed to the Spanish settlement below the Natches, on the Missisippi, but was actually at Fort Pitt on the 2d of January, 1790.
1Opinion of the Court
Shippen, President,
observed, that while a man remained in the State, though avowing an intention to withdraw from it, he must be considered as an inhabitant, and, therefore, not an object of the Foreign Attachment. If an inhabitant clandestinely withdraws, or secretes himself, to avoid his creditors, he becomes liable to the Domestic Attachment. The having once been an inhabitant will not, however, protect a man forever from a ForeignAttachment, where he has notoriously emigrated from the State, and settled elsewhere. But the cafe before the Court, is that of a Foreign Attachment issued at…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Fry's Election CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1872
- State ex rel. Thayer v. BoydNebraska Supreme Court · 1891
- State v. PrimroseSupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- In re Estate of MichalOhio Probate Court · 1939
- Shipman v. Woodbury, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1837