Mindlin v. Saxony Spinning Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 374, Jan. T., 1917, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1917, No. 219, dissolving attachment in case of Henry Mindlin and Louis Eosenman, Copartners, trading as Mindlin and Eosenman, v. Saxony Spinning Company, Defendant, and William H. Lorimer Sons Company, Garnishee. Foreign attachment in assumpsit. Eule by garnishee to show cause of action. Before Wessbl, J. The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 374, Jan. T., 1917, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1917, No. 219, dissolving attachment in case of Henry Mindlin and Louis Eosenman, Copartners, trading as Mindlin and Eosenman, v. Saxony Spinning Company, Defendant, and William H. Lorimer Sons Company, Garnishee. Foreign attachment in assumpsit. Eule by garnishee to show cause of action. Before Wessbl, J. The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court dissolved the attachment. Plaintiffs appealed. Error assigned, inter alia, was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinión by
Mr. Justice Walling,
This is an action of foreign attachment in assumpsit by a New York firm against a North Carolina corporation, for alleged breach of contract for sale of cotton yarn. No service was had on defendant; but, when ruled by the garnishee, plaintiffs filed an affidavit of cause of action, which the court below held insufficient and dissolved the attachment; wherein we see no error. The affidavit must set out a good cause of action and such facts as give the court jurisdiction, and must not be ambiguous nor depend upon conjecture or inference. See Hallowell v. Tenney…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Raymond v. LeishmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. PennockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1866
- Hallowell v. Tenney Canning Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Schueck v. FreemanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Hauptman v. Pennsylvania Working Home for Blind Men of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
3Cited by33 opinions
- Pasquinelli v. Southern Macaroni Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- American Trust Co. v. KaufmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Sniderman v. NeroneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Frankel v. Donehoo (Nesbitt)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- David E. Kennedy, Inc. v. SchleindlSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.