Sperry v. Styer
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 6, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 1207, making absolute rule to strike off judgment in case of C. W. Sperry and J. Bushnell Sperry, trading as Sperry Manufacturing Company, v. Samuel Styer, trading as Styer & Company. Rule to strike off judgment. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. Mror assigned was the order of the court making absolute rule to strike off judgment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 6, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 1207, making absolute rule to strike off judgment in case of C. W. Sperry and J. Bushnell Sperry, trading as Sperry Manufacturing Company, v. Samuel Styer, trading as Styer & Company. Rule to strike off judgment. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. Mror assigned was the order of the court making absolute rule to strike off judgment. The defendant having been lawfully served with the writ of attachment in this case, the dissolution of said attachment did not terminate and…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The plaintiffs issued an attachment under the Act of March 17, 1869, P. L. 8, on August 30, 1893, returnable on the first *609Monday of September, 1893. The writ was returned served on the garnishee and nihil habet as to the defendant. September 18, 1893, the defendant obtained a rule to dissolve the attachment, which rule was made absolute March 5, 1894. April 23, 1894, the plaintiffs filed their statement of claim, and on June 22, 1894, entered judgment for want of an- appearance. December 18, 1902, the defendant obtained a rule to strike off the judgment, and on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harbert v. GormleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887