Pollock v. Chelsea Fiber Mills
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 138, Oct. T., 1910, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. Term, 1908, No. 56, making absolute rule to quash writ of foreign attachment in case of James Pollock, trading as James Pollock & Son v. Chelsea Fiber Mills. Rule to quash foreign attachment. The opinion *of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned was order making absolute rule to quash foreign attachment.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
The Act of May 12, 1897, P. L. 62, provides that if the plaintiff in any foreign attachment “shall not, within one year after the issuance of the writ, file a statement of his or their cause of action, such writ shall thereby abate without any further action by the defendant or garnishee, and the lien of said attachment upon the goods, chattels, lands and tenements, rights and credits of the defendant, *128in the hands of the garnishees shall thereupon cease.” The contention of appellant's counsel is, that where bail has been entered there is no attachment in existence upon…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Case v. HumphreySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1826
- Biddle v. BlackSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Sharpless v. ZieglerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Albany City Insurance v. WhitneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
- Eno v. FrisbieSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1811
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pottash v. Hartenfeld Bag Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920