Caulfield v. Van Brunt
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 98, July T., 1895, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 8, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1893, No. 151, on verdict for plaintiff. Foreign attachment. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was in directing verdict for plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Dean,
John L. Bogert, a citizen of New York, was a debtor, by judgment, of Caulfield, a citizen of Pennsylvania, plaintiff, in sum of $248. On this debt the plaintiff issued a writ of foreign attachment and levied it on a turret engine lath machine in the possession of Moore & White, of Philadelphia, averring the machine to be the property of Bogert. The machine was claimed by Yan Brunt, this defendant, who was permitted to interplead. *431The garnishees, Moore & White, at the suggestion of Yan Brunt, pleaded, nulla bona, and the issue thus framed came on for trial in the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Field v. . the Mayor, C. of New-YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Linton v. ButzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
3Cited by8 opinions
- Jarecki Manufacturing Co. v. Hart Bros.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- In re Pittsburgh Industrial Iron WorksDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1910
- In re Miller Pure Rye Distilling Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1910
- Selznick v. Holmes Pittsburgh Automobile Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Gump v. McDanielSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.