Rundle v. Scheetz
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
IN this case (March term, 1839, No. 27.) Rundle had a judgment in this court, against Seheetz, who was an inspector of customs of the United States. The plaintiff issued an attachment of execution, and filed the following interrogatories to George Wolf, the garnishee: “ First.—Do you know John II.
Read the full summary
IN this case (March term, 1839, No. 27.) Rundle had a judgment in this court, against Seheetz, who was an inspector of customs of the United States. The plaintiff issued an attachment of execution, and filed the following interrogatories to George Wolf, the garnishee: “ First.—Do you know John II. Seheetz, the defendant in the above suit named 1 “Second.—Are you or are you not indebted to the said John H. Seheetz ? If aye, state the amount of your indebtedness, and annex a copy of your account with him. “ Third.—Had you in your possession any moneys, debts or effects of any nature whatever,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.—
We are asked for judgment in this case, against George Wolf, the garnishee, on his answers. The salary of an inspector of customs, which has not accrued at the time of the attachment of execution laid, is clearly not attachable, because it is not, under the act of 16th June 1836, relating to executions, (Stroud’s Purd. 415, 6th edition,) in any aspect, a debt due or belonging to the defendant. But the answers disclose that there had accrued and was due to the defendant, one hundred and thirty-two dollars, which would have been rightly attachable, if it were not for other reasons.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Rozelle v. RhodesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887