Lazarus Barnet's Case
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
LAZARUS BARNET having absconded, several foreign attachments were issued against him; and, afterwards, motions were made to set them aside respectively, in favour of a domestic attachment, which had, likewise issued against him. These motions were all founded upon the following affidavit.
Read the full summary
LAZARUS BARNET having absconded, several foreign attachments were issued against him; and, afterwards, motions were made to set them aside respectively, in favour of a domestic attachment, which had, likewise issued against him. These motions were all founded upon the following affidavit. “Daniel Benezet maketh oath that on or about the 12th day of May 1783, the deponent let his house in Second Street Philadelphia to a certain Lazarus Barnet; that the said Lazarus Barnet has resided therein and followed the business of a Merchant or Store-keeper from that time ’till about two weeks ago, when…
1Opinion of the Court
the President delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.
Shippen, President.
—The question before us, is, whether the foreign attachments, or the domestic attachment, issued against Lazarus Barnet, shall be established? The arguments in support of the foreign attachments, are chiefly founded on the third clause in the first act of Assembly, which says that “no writ of attachment shall be granted against any persons effects, but such only as, at the time of granting such writs, are not resident, or residing, within this province;" and on that of the second act, which leaves non residents to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Mabee v. McDonaldTexas Supreme Court · 1915
- Mellen v. MellenNew York Supreme Court · 1882
- Bushel v. Commonwealth InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1827
- Town of Gilford v. Town of GilmantonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1818