Landis v. Lyon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata county: No. 13, to May Term 1872. This was a feigned issue framed, December 9th 1870, “ between Lewis A. Landis, plaintiff, and Jeremiah Lyons and Henry Cross, assignees of Kurtz & Cross, defendants, to try the right of the said plaintiff, under the $300 law, to the money in the hands of Samuel Leonard, administrator of Joseph Kurtz, deceased, attached by the said defendants, under an attachment-execution, No. 17, of February…
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata county: No. 13, to May Term 1872. This was a feigned issue framed, December 9th 1870, “ between Lewis A. Landis, plaintiff, and Jeremiah Lyons and Henry Cross, assignees of Kurtz & Cross, defendants, to try the right of the said plaintiff, under the $300 law, to the money in the hands of Samuel Leonard, administrator of Joseph Kurtz, deceased, attached by the said defendants, under an attachment-execution, No. 17, of February Term 1870.” The issue was tried, April 25th 1871, before Graham, P. J. On the trial it appeared that the defendants, in the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
Agnew, J.
The learned judge, in the court below, seems to have overlooked the fact that upon an execution-attachment the only duty of the sheriff is to serve the writ on the defendant and the garnishee, and not to make a levy on goods. What the defendant said at the time of service as to his other property, therefore, neither tended to mislead nor to hinder and delay the sheriff. It is quite proper for the defendant to claim his exemption when the attachment is served upon him, but it is not imperative. He may do so when he appears, and before the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Clarke & Cohen v. Real Ex Rel. Stroudsburg Nat. BankSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Hild Floor MacHine Co. v. RudolphSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944