Legal Opinion

United States v. Paul B. Miller and Mildred E. Miller, His Wife

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided February 8, 1956No. 11716_1PublishedCited by 24 opinions

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

  1. Commonwealth State Emp. Ret. System v. Dau. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  2. HOFFMAN v. PITTSBURGHSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  3. Baker v. KirschnekSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  4. Commonwealth v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832
  5. Culver v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. United States v. YazellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. DeglauCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
  3. Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. CañasDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1981
  4. Specialty Healthcare Management, Inc. v. St. Mary Parish HospitalCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
  5. Van Winkle v. Allstate InsuranceDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2003

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API