Hallowell v. Tenney Canning Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 80, Oct. T., 1900, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1900, No. 19, making absolute a rule to dissolve foreign attachment, in case of T. A. James, J. F. Hallowell and M. T. Jones, trading as T. A. James & Company v. A. F. Tenney Canning Company. Rule to dissolve foreign attachment. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was in making absolute a rule to dissolve foreign attachment.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
This was an action of assumpsit begun bj^ foreign attachment issued on December 30, 1899. On February 21,1900, the garnishees entered a rule on the plaintiffs to show cause of action. Whether or not a return day was specificallj'- mentioned in the order does not appear. On March 1, the plaintiffs filed their affidavit. It was stated at bar, and not denied, that the rule was on the argument list for March 5, and was continued. The reasons for continuance do not appear of record, but it is proper to say that it is not alleged that there was any hearing or argument of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Nicoll v. McCaffreySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Davis v. TingleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
3Cited by13 opinions
- Mindlin v. Saxony Spinning Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Schueck v. FreemanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- McLennan v. Public Utilities Construction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Levie v. LevieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- Sabarof v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.