Conshohocken Tube Co. v. Iron Car Equipment Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 119, Jan. T., 1895, by garnishees, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1894, No. 25, on answers of garnishees. Foreign attachment. Rule for judgment on answers of garnishees. The substance of the answers are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court entered judgment against garnishees upon their answers.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
The appellants are garnishees in a foreign attachment against whom a judgment has been entered “for amount admitted.” The question to be now decided is whether the answers support the judgment. Looking at the answers and the several amendments as they stood when the judgment was entered their formidable proportions may be reduced to three brief statements. First, the receivers of the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad had purchased railroad supplies that were unpaid for to the amount of four thousand nine hundred and thirty-five dollars and sixty-five cents, by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lancaster County Bank v. GrossSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
3Cited by3 opinions
- Importers & Traders National Bank v. LyonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Stern & Co. v. HarrodSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Davis Coal & Coke Co. v. HessSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906