Cornman's Appeal
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland county: Of May Term 1879, No. 103. Debt by R. Bruce Petriken and J. S. Miller against Joseph S Cornman. On March 14th 1874, plaintiffs endorsed a promissory note drawn' by defendant, payable to their order, for his accommodation, which they were compelled to pay. On August 2d 1875, they commenced an action against him by attachment under the Act of 17th March 1869: Pamph. L. 8; Purd.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland county: Of May Term 1879, No. 103. Debt by R. Bruce Petriken and J. S. Miller against Joseph S Cornman. On March 14th 1874, plaintiffs endorsed a promissory note drawn' by defendant, payable to their order, for his accommodation, which they were compelled to pay. On August 2d 1875, they commenced an action against him by attachment under the Act of 17th March 1869: Pamph. L. 8; Purd. Dig. 53; the sheriff attaching certain household furniture, together with type, presses, &c. On August 9th 1875, the defendant filed a motion to dissolve the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sterrett
The only question in this case is, whether the appellant was too late in claiming the benefit of the exemption law. Suit was commenced against him by attachment- under the Act of March 17th 1869; and after the court had refused to dissolve the attachment, judgment was entered by consent in favor of plaintiffs, coupled with an agreement that the record should “not be used as evidence by he plaintiffs in any pending litigation, for the purpose of sus*256taining any allegation of fraud on the part of the defendant, either in the contraction of.the debt, or in connection with any other matter or…
2Cited by3 opinions
- H. G. Beetem & Co. v. GetzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Blakeley v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Forst v. LeesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908