Rex v. Paramount Rubber Co. of New Jersey
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Keller, J.,
A rule to quash a writ of foreign attachment is not the proper proceeding to determine whether a bill of sale and transfer of all its property in this State made by the defendant foreign corporation to a Pennsylvania corporation bearing the same name, and with the same officers and management, was in fraud of the former’s creditors: Welmet B. & L. Assn. v. Matchica, 310 Pa. 275, 278, 165 Atl. 227. That question can better be determined on an interpleader issue under the Act of June 22, 1931, P. L. 883, following a claim of property by the Pennsylvania corporation; or on…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Pasquinelli v. Southern Macaroni Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Mindlin v. Saxony Spinning Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- David E. Kennedy, Inc. v. SchleindlSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. PennockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1866
- Welmet Building & Loan Ass'n v. MatchicaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Falk & Co. v. South Texas Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Bianco v. Concepts" 100", Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Marano v. Granata (Hankin)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Powers v. SlatterySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Keystone State Corp. v. Union Indemnity Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1941
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.