Stockham v. Boyd
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
January Term, 1887, No. 444, E. D., before Gordon, Oh. J., Paxson, Sterrett, Green, Clark, and Williams, JJ. Error to Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County to review a judgment for plaintiffs in an action begun by foreign attachment This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, commenced by summons case, February 20, 1885, which was -returned tarde venit.
Read the full summary
January Term, 1887, No. 444, E. D., before Gordon, Oh. J., Paxson, Sterrett, Green, Clark, and Williams, JJ. Error to Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County to review a judgment for plaintiffs in an action begun by foreign attachment This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, commenced by summons case, February 20, 1885, which was -returned tarde venit. March 9, 1885, an alias summons case was issued which was returned nihil hdbet, and April 16, 1886, a pluries summons was issued returnable on the first Monday of May, 1886. While this last-named writ of pluries summons was in…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam :
The court below was evidently right in striking off the plea to the jurisdiction. It is too plain for argument that the court below has jurisdiction in a case of foreign attachment. Whether this particular case was properly assigned to common pleas No. 4 we are not called upon to decide; and if we were, the record furnishes us no information upon the subject. We must presume it to have been properly done.
*292There was no error in issuing the writ of foreign attachment, pending the action commenced- by summons. The latter writ does not appear to have been served; and if it had been,…