Harris v. Shuster
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 136, Nov. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of G. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1896, No. 973, making absolute rule disallowing exemption. Assumpsit for coal sold and delivered. On May 9, 1896, the plaintiffs obtained judgment against the firm of Rhoads & Shuster. The levy was made under fierf facias on the interest of Shuster in another concern known as Warner, Shuster & Co., Ltd. Shuster claimed the benefit of the. exemption law.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 136, Nov. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of G. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1896, No. 973, making absolute rule disallowing exemption. Assumpsit for coal sold and delivered. On May 9, 1896, the plaintiffs obtained judgment against the firm of Rhoads & Shuster. The levy was made under fierf facias on the interest of Shuster in another concern known as Warner, Shuster & Co., Ltd. Shuster claimed the benefit of the. exemption law. His claim was allowed by sheriff. The court subsequently made absolute the rule to show cause why the claim should not be disallowed and the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Wickham, J.,
The plaintiffs obtained judgment against Samuel H. Rhoads and W. Durell Shuster, partners as Rhoads and Shuster. On this judgment they caused to be issued a fieri facias returnable to the first Monday of June, 1896, whereon a levy was made on the interest of Shuster in another concern, known as Warner, Shuster & Co., Limited, a joint stock association or partnership organized under the act of June 2, 1874, P. L. 271, and its supplements.
It is asserted in the appellant’s paper-book that the word “ Limited ” was originally omitted from the precipe and ivrit and added…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McAfoose's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858