Commonwealth v. Litvitz
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 131, April T., 1900, by defendants, in suit of commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for use of M. Michel against Lizzie Litvitz and Isaac Gelder, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Go., Jan. T., 1900, No. 161, in favor of plaintiff, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Opinion by Rice, P. J. Assumpsit. Before the court in banc.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 131, April T., 1900, by defendants, in suit of commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for use of M. Michel against Lizzie Litvitz and Isaac Gelder, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Go., Jan. T., 1900, No. 161, in favor of plaintiff, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Opinion by Rice, P. J. Assumpsit. Before the court in banc. It appears from the record that the plaintiff’s claim is for $248.24, with interest from November 3, 1897, founded upon a bond in the penal sum of $500, executed by the appellants and approved by the court, of date November 8, 1897, given to secure…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
It is urged that the creditor gained nothing by the attachment of the debtor’s property and lost nothing by the dissolution of it; nor did the debtor gain anything by the dissolution. Whether or not the debtor gained anything in the end by the dissolution we cannot say; but it is very evident that she had some purpose to serve in giving a bond, and that she got all the benefit, which, under the law, could accrue to her from that act, namely, the release of her goods from the attachment. Nor is the other branch of the appellant’s proposition sound. The attachment gave the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hershey v. McLaughlinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901