Wray v. Tammany
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Centre county. MeCrory & Divvers, for the use of James & Alexander Wray, brought suit against Tammany & Myers. On the 15th December, 1849, award of arbitrators was filed, finding for plaintiffs $573 43. On the second day afterwards, viz: on the 17th December, an attachment execution, in the nature of a foreign attachment, was issued on the judgment, to levy debts due to defendant, in hands of garnishees.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Centre county. MeCrory & Divvers, for the use of James & Alexander Wray, brought suit against Tammany & Myers. On the 15th December, 1849, award of arbitrators was filed, finding for plaintiffs $573 43. On the second day afterwards, viz: on the 17th December, an attachment execution, in the nature of a foreign attachment, was issued on the judgment, to levy debts due to defendant, in hands of garnishees. January 31, 1850, on motion, rule to shew cause why the attachment in this case should not be set aside by the court. Opinion of the court: Woodward, J. The 34th…
1Per curiam
An attachment under the act of 1836, is pro*396cess to enforce the judgment; and it is, in substance, if not in form, an execution. It differs from a fieri facias essentially only in this, that it reaches effects, from which the debt could otherwise not be levied. It is usually called an attachment execution; but whatever the name, it is within the spirit and purview of the statute.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Overbrook Heights Building & Loan Ass'n v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Ellwanger v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Commonwealth v. RarickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Link Building & Loan Ass'n v. MelnickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Heller v. Goldsmith, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.