United States v. Paul B. Miller and Mildred E. Miller, His Wife
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
GOODRICH, Circuit Judge.
This case brings up the question of a Pennsylvania garnishment statute in a suit by the United States. The facts are simple and undisputed. Paul Miller and his wife borrowed money from the United States under the provisions of The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act. 50 Stat. 522 (1937), as amended, 7 U.S. C.A. §§ 1001 — 1005d, 1007, 1008-1029. They defaulted in their obligation to repay. After unsuccessful attempts to collect the remainder of the ' debt, the United States entered judgment for it. Subsequently, informal efforts to secure payment- having failed, an…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Commonwealth State Emp. Ret. System v. Dau. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- HOFFMAN v. PITTSBURGHSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
- Baker v. KirschnekSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Commonwealth v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832
- Culver v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- United States v. YazellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. DeglauCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. CañasDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1981
- Specialty Healthcare Management, Inc. v. St. Mary Parish HospitalCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
- Van Winkle v. Allstate InsuranceDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2003
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.