Smith v. Eyre
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 70, July T., 1891, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1888, No. 275, discharging rule obtained by defendant, Mary Y. Eyre, to set aside fi. fa. issued by plaintiff, A. Louis Smith. Foreign attachment. Judgment for want of an appearance was entered Dec. 11, 1888. On June 14,1889, a rule was obtained to open judgment and let defendant into a defence; and on Dec. 11, 1889, this rule was discharged.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 70, July T., 1891, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1888, No. 275, discharging rule obtained by defendant, Mary Y. Eyre, to set aside fi. fa. issued by plaintiff, A. Louis Smith. Foreign attachment. Judgment for want of an appearance was entered Dec. 11, 1888. On June 14,1889, a rule was obtained to open judgment and let defendant into a defence; and on Dec. 11, 1889, this rule was discharged. On Feb. 25,1890, an appearance was entered for defendant. On April 22,1891, the fi. fa. issued. The other facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice McCollum,
A judgment entered for want of an appearance in a suit commenced by a writ of foreign attachment, under the act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 680, binds only the property attached, and the process for the collection of it does not extend to other prop-r erty of the defendant.
In the case before us the attachment was levied upon a certain lot situate on the south side of Dickinson street, in Philadelphia, and having a front of eighteen feet and a depth of seventy feet; and Edward Crawford, the Kensington National Bank and John Grunninger, were summoned as garnishees. At…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Morgan v. OwnbeySuperior Court of Delaware · 1916
- Glenny v. BoydSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Markloff v. Miller, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County1956