Klein v. Cohen
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 21, April T., 1904, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Armstrong Co., March T., 1903, No. 66, refusing to take off compulsory nonsuit in case of Max Klein v. J. J. Cohen andE. O. Golden and John Krumpe. Issue in attachment execution. At the trial the only evidence as to whether there was any money of the defendant in the hands of the garnishee at the date of the writ, was contained in the testimony of the garnishee himself.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 21, April T., 1904, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Armstrong Co., March T., 1903, No. 66, refusing to take off compulsory nonsuit in case of Max Klein v. J. J. Cohen andE. O. Golden and John Krumpe. Issue in attachment execution. At the trial the only evidence as to whether there was any money of the defendant in the hands of the garnishee at the date of the writ, was contained in the testimony of the garnishee himself. The material portion of this testimony is quoted in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
The issue in this case, reached on attachment execution, is whether E. O. Golden, garnishee, had possession of money or attachable property of J. J. Cohen, the defendant, bound by the writ. Cohen was about to sell his wholesale liquor store to one John Krumpe, provided the license therefor was transferred to him. Pending the negotiations the purchase money was secured by the check of Krumpe, and by agreement it was placed in the hands of the garnishee. The license was duly transferred, the sale completed, and the check paid to Golden, and this money was assigned by the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Yount v. McKennaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948