Ross v. Clarke
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Foreign Attachment. Clarke, the defendant in this case, had obtained judgment upon a scire facias against Ross, the plaintiff, as special bail of one Munro ; and a stay of proceedings was entered, until the ensuing term, when Ross was to pay the money recovered into court, if, before that time, the original debtor had not satisfied the debt.
Read the full summary
Foreign Attachment. Clarke, the defendant in this case, had obtained judgment upon a scire facias against Ross, the plaintiff, as special bail of one Munro ; and a stay of proceedings was entered, until the ensuing term, when Ross was to pay the money recovered into court, if, before that time, the original debtor had not satisfied the debt. The stay being elapsed, Ross paid the money, but upon an apprehension that payment might have been made by Munro, though no accounts were received of it, he immediately issued this foreign attachment against Clarke, and laid it in the hands of the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The money is to be considered in the same state, as if it had been paid into the hands of the sheriff. If a proceeding of this kind were allowed, there could be no end to suits. We are unanimously of opinion, that the foreign attachment has issued irregularly, and ought to be quashed.
The rule made absolute, (a)
In McCarty v. Emlen, 2 Yeates 190, s. c. Dall. 277, it was held, that a debt in suit might be attached in the hands of the defendant in the suit. C. J. McKean, however, in the course of his opinion, recognised the case in the text, as one in which an attachment would not…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fretz v. HellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- M'Carty v. EmlenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1797