Legal Opinion

Barrett v. First Mechanics National Bank

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 4, 1938No. Appeal, 25PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, P. J.,

It was decided, as early as 1788, that a foreign attachment would not lie in this Commonwealth against the executors of a decedent as defendants, and that if so issued it would be quashed: Pringle v. Black’s Executors, 2 Dallas 97. This ruling was cited with approval in Bushel v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 15 S. & R. 173, 179, and Shewell v. Keen, 2 Whart. 332.

The Act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 568, (Secs. 43 to 77 of which relate to foreign attachments), as amended by the Acts of March 30, 1905, P. L. 76, and June 21, 1911, P. L. 1097, made no change in the law in this…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Raymond v. LeishmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  2. Pasquinelli v. Southern Macaroni Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  3. Mindlin v. Saxony Spinning Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  4. Laughlin v. SolomonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
  5. Garman v. GlassSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Miller, Admrx. v. Jacobs, Admrx.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  2. Marano v. GranataSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Ionian Bank, Ltd. v. MamatosSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  4. Abington School District v. B.G.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  5. Apgar Bros. v. Isner Estate, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County1953

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API