Stranahan v. Stranahan
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mercer County
No. 236 October Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 131 January Term 1890, C. P. On December 21, 1889, an execution attachment was issued upon a judgment in favor of E. E. Stranahan against James A. Stranahan, summoning George W. Wright as garnishee. To interrogatories filed and served with the writ, the garnishee answered denying that he was indebted to the defendant, or bad in bis bands any moneys or effects belonging to him, and entered tbe plea of nulla bona.
Read the full summary
No. 236 October Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 131 January Term 1890, C. P. On December 21, 1889, an execution attachment was issued upon a judgment in favor of E. E. Stranahan against James A. Stranahan, summoning George W. Wright as garnishee. To interrogatories filed and served with the writ, the garnishee answered denying that he was indebted to the defendant, or bad in bis bands any moneys or effects belonging to him, and entered tbe plea of nulla bona. On April 10, 1890, the garnishee entered a rule to refer, under § 8, act of June 16,1836, P. L. 719. Service thereof was accepted…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mb. Chief Justice Paxson:
The only complaint here, is that the court below erred in striking off the rule to arbitrate. The rule was entered by the garnishee in an attachment execution, after he had appeared and entered the plea of nulla bona. This raises the question whether an attachment execution comes within the compulsory *47arbitration act of 1836. This act lias been in force for over fifty years, and the fact that no attempt has heretofore been made to apply it to execution attachments, is some evidence of the general belief of the profession that such cases do not come within it.
Th…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Kase v. KaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Newlin v. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1856
3Cited by1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. RarickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917