Riley v. Hirst
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of the city and county of Philadelphia. April 6. Hirst, being summoned as garnishee in an attachment in execution, pleaded that he had no other moneys of defendants, except the sum of $300 then in his hands, received by -him as attorney at law, under a distribution of the proceeds of a sheriff’s sale of the real estate of a third person. The other pleas are immaterial here. Plaintiff demurred, and the court below gave judgment for defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtSergeant, J.
— No reason has been suggested why an attorney at law should not be made garnishee in a foreign attachment. Considerations of public policy and convenience require, that money in the hands of public officers appointed by law, such as sheriffs, prothonotaries, and other depositaries, should not he stopped whilst in custodia legis. But an attorney at law derives his power entirely from his client, and there seems no more reason for his exemption than that of an attorney in fact or other private agent. Accordingly the authorities are all concurrent on the point; and even in England, where the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Weicht v. Automobile Banking Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
- OSTROFF v. YaslykSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Weicht v. Automobile Banking Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Tressler v. LuntSuperior Court of Delaware · 1932
- Buono v. McCulloughLancaster County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1930
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.