Falk & Co. v. South Texas Cotton Oil Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell,
South Texas Cotton Oil Company, one of the defendants, took this appeal (pursuant to the Act of March 5, 1925 P.L. 23 §1, 12 P.S. §672) from the order of the court below discharging its rule to quash a writ of foreign attachment. The ground or basis of the court’s decision was that the issue of title (to the proceeds of several drafts) could not be decided preliminarily on a rule to quash. Because the nature of this case is complicated and the facts are so very important we shall state them in great detail.
This is a proceeding of foreign attachment in assumpsit…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Nanty-Glo Boro. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Raymond v. LeishmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Pasquinelli v. Southern Macaroni Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Heid Bros., Inc. v. Commercial Nat. Bank of HutchinsonTexas Commission of Appeals · 1922
- Mindlin v. Saxony Spinning Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Richette v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Fries v. RitterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- Badler v. L. Gillarde Sons Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Alpers v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
- Dunn v. Printing Corporation of AmericaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.