Legal Opinion

Benedict & Eberle Co. v. Hollman

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 8, 1917No. Appeal, No. 187PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 187, April T., 1917, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T. 1914, No. 736, refusing judgment against garnishee on answers in case of Benedict & Eberle Company v. Charles Hollman. Rule for judgment on answers. From the record it appeared that on October 15,1913, Charles S. Hollman, a licensed Avholesale liquor dealer of Carnegie, Pa., entered into a Avritten agreement with Michael Gerlowsky, the material portions of which are summarized in the opinion of the Superior Court. The sum of ¡§9,000 was paid over to Prestley & Nesbit to be held in escrow in accordance…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Head, J.,

The single question for our determination is, should the attaching creditor have judgment against the garnishee on the answers filed. The process of attachment execution is familiar. We suppose we may assume that “in order to sustain an attachment execution, there must be a debt due from the garnishee to the defendant in the judgment which may be payable at the time of the service of the writ or may become payable subsequently.” We quote from Lane’s App., 105 Pa. 49. It would follow the right of an attaching creditor can rise no higher than that of his debtor. What the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

Bunn's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884

3Cited by11 opinions

Austin-Nichols & Co. v. Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
Cesco Supply Co. v. BrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
Allen's Bulk Sale, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lycoming County1956
Alwine v. Fitts Cotton Goods, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1971
Commonwealth v. Kile, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Columbia County1958

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