Lafferty v. Corcoran
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 189, July T., 1895, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1894, No. 964, discharging rule to dissolve attachment. Rule to dissolve attachment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 189, July T., 1895, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1894, No. 964, discharging rule to dissolve attachment. Rule to dissolve attachment. From the record it appeared that the action was brought upon a writ of attachment under the fraudulent debtor’s act of March 17, 1869, P. L. 8, by Charles H. Lafferty and Rose E. Lafferty, executors of the estate of Charles Lafferty, deceased, against their coexecutor, Patrick Corcoran, upon an affidavit filed by them, alleging that said Corcoran had fraudulently taken from said estate large sums of money belonging…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This is an appeal from the decree of tbe court below discharging defendant’s “ rule to show cause why the writ of attachment should not be quashed and attachment dissolved,” etc.
In the absence of any statutory authority for an appeal in such cases we have no power to review the action of the court below in the premises.
The writ of appeal is therefore quashed at appellant’s costs.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Slingluff, Johns & Co. v. SislerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Ingram v. OrangersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Rouss v. GilliamSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Steinman v. KreiderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911