Hoppes v. Houtz
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County
No. 184 July Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 141 July Term 1889, C. P. On May 29,1889, an affidavit, copy of book account and bond being filed, an attachment under the act of March 17, 1869, P- L. 8, was issued in a cause wherein “ A. & D. M. Hoppes, Agents,” were plaintiffs, and A. W. Houtz, defendant. The bond filed was in form as follows: “Know all men by these presents that we, A. & D. M. Hoppes, Agts., G. B. Wagner and Wm.
Read the full summary
No. 184 July Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 141 July Term 1889, C. P. On May 29,1889, an affidavit, copy of book account and bond being filed, an attachment under the act of March 17, 1869, P- L. 8, was issued in a cause wherein “ A. & D. M. Hoppes, Agents,” were plaintiffs, and A. W. Houtz, defendant. The bond filed was in form as follows: “Know all men by these presents that we, A. & D. M. Hoppes, Agts., G. B. Wagner and Wm. Scullen,.....are held and firmly bound unto the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the sum of.....to be paid to the said commonwealth of Pennsylvania, its certain…
1Per curiam
This appeal is a substitute for a certiorari and must be treated as such. It brings up nothing but the record. From it we learn that the proceeding below was an attachment under the act of 1869, and that the court dissolved it. The record does not show the ground upon which the attachment was dissolved. Nor is it material, as the order was interlocutory and not reviewable here. It was a matter within the discretion of the court below, and we have nothing before us to show that this discretion was abused.
Order affirmed.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BurnsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Hall v. OysterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Slingluff, Johns & Co. v. SislerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Ingram v. OrangersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Johnston v. MenaghSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.