Legal Opinion

Meyer v. Pianti

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 10, 1933No. Appeal 129PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

The proceeding below was an attachment in execution, under which the judgment creditor, (Meyer), attached in the hands of the garnishees, ( (1) Bloeser’s Estate and (2) Lyman Felheim Co.) any moneys due by them respectively to the judgment debtor, (Pianti), or which the last named was entitled to demand from them or either of them. Plaintiff’s right of recovery in this proceeding was based on the premise that the garnishees owed money to the judgment debtor, Pianti, or had money in their hands belonging to him, which he had a legal right to require them to pay to him,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Great American Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  2. Greene County v. Southern Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. Austin-Nichols & Co. v. Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Blymire v. BoistleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
  5. Brill v. BrillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Folmar v. ShafferSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. London Grove Contractors, Inc. v. J. Robert Pierson, Inc. (In Re J. Robert Pierson, Inc.)District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Fisher for Use v. McFarlandSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  4. Kassow v. FeldmanPennylvania Municipal Court, Philadelphia County · 1935
  5. Roehm v. Stetson, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1943

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API