Ross v. Clarke
Supreme Court of the United States
FOREIGN attachment.—Clarke, the Defendant in this case, had obtained judgment upon scire facias against Ross, the Plaintiff, as special bail of one Munro; and a slay of proceedings was entered untill the ensuing term, when Ross was to pay the money recovered into Court, if before that time the original debtor had not fatished the debt.
Read the full summary
FOREIGN attachment.—Clarke, the Defendant in this case, had obtained judgment upon scire facias against Ross, the Plaintiff, as special bail of one Munro; and a slay of proceedings was entered untill the ensuing term, when Ross was to pay the money recovered into Court, if before that time the original debtor had not fatished the debt. The stay being elapsed, Ross paid the money, but, upon an apprehension that payment might have been made by Munro, though no account were received of it, he immediately issued this foreign attachment against Clarke, and laid it in the hands of the Prothonotary.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The money is to be considered in the same state, as if it had been paid into the hands of the Sheriff. If a proceeding of this kind were allowed, there could be no end to suits. We are unanimously of opinion, that the foreign attachment has issued irregularly and ought to be quashed.
The rule made absolute.
2Cited by12 opinions
- Klebach v. Mellon Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Stratton v. HamIndiana Supreme Court · 1856
- Bushel v. Commonwealth InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1827
- Corbyn v. BollmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- Norton v. ClarkNevada Supreme Court · 1884
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.