Danziger v. Ferber
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 81, Oct. T., 1921, by plaintiff, from order of O. P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1920, No. 2393, malting absolute rule to dissolve attachment, in case of Ed. Danziger v. Louis Ferber. Rule to dissolve attachment. Before Haymaker and Kline, JJ. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Rule absolute. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was order, quoting it.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Frazer,
Plaintiff obtained judgment against defendant under which he attached funds in the hands of defendant’s em*195ployer, the owner of a large department store in the City of Pittsburgh. The latter admitted a stated amount due as installments of salary, also an amount to become due as a bonus. The court below, after argument, dissolved the attachment, and plaintiff appealed.
Plaintiff does not seriously contend that the salary as such was not exempt from attachment under the Act of April 15,1845, P. L. 459, arguing, however, that the protection of the act was lost because…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hamberger v. MarcusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Smith v. BrookeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
- Seiders's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
- H. F. Watson Co. v. ChristSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
3Cited by12 opinions
- Bell v. RobertsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- McCloskey v. Northdale Woolen MillsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Integrity Trust Company v. TaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Sheryl Records, Inc. v. the CyrkleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Union Trust Co. v. Altman, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Fayette County1941
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.