Nicoll v. McCaffrey
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal No. 25, Nov. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1895, No. 57, making absolute rules entered by the garnishees to show cause of action and why an attachment should not be dissolved, and also why attachment should not be quashed.
Read the full summary
Appeal No. 25, Nov. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1895, No. 57, making absolute rules entered by the garnishees to show cause of action and why an attachment should not be dissolved, and also why attachment should not be quashed. Assumpsit by plaintiff on joint promissory note of J. Carroll McCaffrey and Eugenie M. McCaffrey for $500. Action commenced by summons against J. Carroll McCaffrey and by foreign attachment against Eugenie M. McCaffrey. Under the attachment the sheriff returned that he had attached “ the goods, chattels, lands and tenements,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
This was a foreign attachment. After service of the writ on J. Carroll McCaffrey, and on the garnishees, and after the latter had entered an appearance, two rules were entered on application of the garnishee; one a rule to show cause of action and why the attachment against Eugenie M. McCaffrey should not be dissolved; the other a rule to show cause why the attachment should not be quashed as to her. After hearing, both rules were disposed of by the brief order, “ Rules absolute.” The appeal is from this order. The first question is, whether the action of the court is…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Chase v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
- Rand v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Gosline v. PlaceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Commonwealth v. BeaumontSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Holland v. WhiteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Pasquinelli v. Southern Macaroni Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Provident Trust Co. v. RothmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Falk & Co. v. South Texas Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Hallowell v. Tenney Canning Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- First National Bank of Omaha v. CrosbySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.