Pennell v. Grubb
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county. A case was stated, and the following facts agreed on. On the 26th day of January, 1848, William W. Pennel obtained a judgment against James PI.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county. A case was stated, and the following facts agreed on. On the 26th day of January, 1848, William W. Pennel obtained a judgment against James PI. Pennell, for a' real debt of $1884 88, payable forthwith, tvhich was duly entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county,- No. 80, January Term, 1848, on January 27th, 1848. • On the 28th day of January, 1848, an attachment ad. lev. deb. in satisfaction of this judgment was issued as follows, viz : William W. Pennell vs: James H. Pennell, defendant, and A. Rates Grubb, garnishee. No. 9, April…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
The question in this case arises on the onus. It is doubtful on the admission of the parties whether the assignment of the judgment to the garnishees, or the service of the attachment was prior in time, and in the absence of inference or presumption on either side, which of the parties was bound to furnish the proof? A cross demand against the defendant in an attachment may be' set-off by the garnishee, as it may by a defendant in -any other suit, but subject to the same rules and restrictions; and a defendant may not set-off a demand…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Almi, Inc. v. Dick Corp.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Frazier v. BergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Skinner v. ChaseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Condran v. KennedySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Riley v. EigoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.