Holland v. White
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR AND CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS NO. 3 OE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. Nos. 306 and 307 January Term 1888, Sup.
Read the full summary
ERROR AND CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS NO. 3 OE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. Nos. 306 and 307 January Term 1888, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 97 December Term 1887, C. P. No. 3. On November 23, 1887, a writ of foreign attachment in assumpsit was issued at the suit of Luther Holland, Luther P. Graves and G. B. Montgomery, partners as Holland, Graves & Montgomery, against C. A. White, W. D. Clarkson and D. H. Wellman, partners as White, Clarkson & Co. The writ was executed and service made upon the Penn. R. Co., Watson & Gillingham and John Morrison, garnishees, and returned nihil habent as to…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinions,
Mr. Justice Williams:
The proceeding in the court beloAV, Avhich the plaintiffs seek to review in this court, is an order quashing a writ of foreign attachment. A motion to quash a Avrit, like one to set aside the service or to amend a return, or to set aside a verdict, and the like, is addressed to the discretion of the court, and the exercise of that discretion is not reviewable on a writ of error. The affidavits or depositions on which the order is made are no *234part of the record: Brown v. Ridgway, 10 Pa. 42. There is no method for excepting to their admission by bill, so as to get…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bain v. FunkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
- Brown v. RidgwaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848
- Lindsley v. MaloneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1854
3Cited by17 opinions
- Bell AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Pasquinelli v. Southern Macaroni Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Rand v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Windt v. BannizaWashington Supreme Court · 1891
- Nicoll v. McCaffreySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.