Taylor v. Knox
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
FOREIGN attachments.—In these cases rules had been obtained to shew cause of action, and why the attachments should not be quashed.
Read the full summary
FOREIGN attachments.—In these cases rules had been obtained to shew cause of action, and why the attachments should not be quashed. On the argument, the garnishee Henderson (who was also a copartner with the defendants) produced several witnesses, by whose testimony the following facts were established:—That David Knox came to Philadelphia in the spring of 1784; that he brought furniture with him, hired a dwelling house and store, and prosessed an intention “ to lay his bones here.” That he went to Virginia in February 1785, and sailed thence to England, in consequence of receiving…
1Opinion of the Court
the President, at an adjourned fitting on the 15th of February 1786, delivered the opinion of the Court.
Shippen, President.
—The first point to be decided, is, whether the foreign attachments ought not to be dissolved, on the proofs given of Knox’s being an inhabitant of Pennsylvania, at the time they issued?
We would avoid laying down any general rules as to what will or will not, make a person an inhabitant within the attachment law, left cases should hereafter happen, which might come within those general rules, but were not in the contemplation of the Court in the particular case before…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bailie v. WallaceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- Hays v. BouthalierSupreme Court of Missouri · 1823