Frankel v. Donehoo (Nesbitt)
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Me. Justice Kephart,
This is an appeal from the refusal of the court below to quash a writ of foreign attachment. Early in our judicial history, amendments to an affidavit of cause of action in a foreign attachment were not permitted: Eldridge v. Robinson, 4 S. & R. 548. We follow this practice “because we think it better adapted to produce certainty and avoid temptation to perjury.” The fact that only goods and not the body was detained was held not a sufficient cause for a change of rule. “A detention of goods may not be so grievous......but may do great injury.” Therefore, the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Pasquinelli v. Southern Macaroni Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Goldberg v. FriedrichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Mindlin v. Saxony Spinning Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- G. B. Hurt, Inc. v. Fuller Canneries Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Erie City Iron Works v. BarberSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- ætna Life Ins. Co. v. MoyerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1940
- National Cash Register Co. v. AnsellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Jones v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- Sine v. Salt Lake Transp. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1944
- Commonwealth v. AlliasCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.