Hampton v. Matthews
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was a writ of foreign attachment issued by Matthews and Shaw v. Hampton and others, partners under the firm of Hampton, Smith & Go., as garnishees of certain goods, alleged by the plaintiffs to belong to one Bergin, late a resident of Ohio, who, it was alleged, had absconded.
Read the full summary
Error, to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was a writ of foreign attachment issued by Matthews and Shaw v. Hampton and others, partners under the firm of Hampton, Smith & Go., as garnishees of certain goods, alleged by the plaintiffs to belong to one Bergin, late a resident of Ohio, who, it was alleged, had absconded. A narr. was filed in assumpsit against Bergin, and at the third term of the court, judgment was taken against Bergin for want of appearance, and on February 1, 1849, at the instance of plaintiffs’ attorneys, the amount was liquidated at $581.84. On February 5, 1849,…
1Opinion of the Court
Tbe opinion of tbe court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
— This is a proceeding against a garnishee, in which tbe jury rendered a verdict for tbe plaintiff, for $617.84, without more, on which the court rendered judgment. This is palpably erroneous, disregarding, as it does, the plain directions of tbe act of June 13,1836, relating to tbe commencement of actions. That act, 58th section, requires tbe jury to find what goods or effects, if any, were in the hands of the garnishee, at the time the attachment was executed, or afterwards, and also tbe value thereof. And this is not matter of form, but…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pancake v. HarrisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823
3Cited by2 opinions
- Longwell v. HartwellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Rex v. Paramount Rubber Co. of New JerseySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933