Commonwealth v. Sisler

46 A. 420, 196 Pa. 147
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 21, 1900·No. Appeal, No. 101·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Fell,

This appeal raises in another form the same question which was decided in Slingluff, Johns & Co. v. Sisler, Newmyer’s [148] Appeal, ante, p. 121, in which the opinion of the court has been filed. The action was on a bond given by the defendant and his surety, Newcomer, to enable the defendant to retain possession of the goods attached, the condition of the bond being that the debt and costs should be paid or the goods surrendered if the plaintiff recovered judgment in the attachment proceedings. The only defense set up by the affidavit is that the attachment proceeding has not been fully ended by a trial to determine whether there was fraud. As it has been held that this question was for the court, and was finally decided on the motion to dissolve the attachment, the defense fails. The order of the court entering judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commonwealth v. Sisler, 46 A. 420, 196 Pa. 147 (Pa. 1900).

46 A. 420 (Commonwealth v. Sisler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Locey v. Sterling Motor Truck Co.
156 A. 730 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)
Commonwealth v. Tomashefsky
93 Pa. Super. 104 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)