Conshohocken Tube Co. v. Western New York & Pennsylvania Railroad

34 A. 513, 175 Pa. 235, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1239
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 27, 1896
DocketAppeal, No. 227
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 A. 513 (Conshohocken Tube Co. v. Western New York & Pennsylvania Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Conshohocken Tube Co. v. Western New York & Pennsylvania Railroad, 34 A. 513, 175 Pa. 235, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1239 (Pa. 1896).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

It was incumbent on plaintiff company, in this issue, to show how much, if anything was owing by the garnishee company to the defendant in the judgment. For that purpose, it gave in •evidence the answers of the garnishee company’s receiver, in which he admitted that, prior to July 23, 1893, nearly six months before the writ of foreign attachment was issued, he had sundry transactions with said defendant wherein certain [237]*237sums of money became due and payable to it for mileage earnings of railroad cars; but, in tbe same connection, he averred that on said day it transferred to the Railroad'Equipment Company all its right to said earnings, and in consequence of said transfer or assignment, a copy of which is attached to his answer and made part thereof, he had no money in his hands, due to said defendant on account of said mileage earnings.

The material averments of fact contained in the answers,, thus put in evidence by the plaintiff, were prima facie true; and, in the absence of any testimony tending to prove the contrary, they were conclusive in favor of the garnishee company, so far as any indebtedness on account of said mileage earnings was concerned; and hence there was no error in refusing to submit that matter to the jury. That branch of the plaintiff’s claim having been properly excluded from the consideration of the jury, the only remaining item was $441.83 for material account, not covered by the assignment above referred to. As to that, the learned judge directed the jury to find for the plaintiff.

There is nothing in either of the specifications of error that requires further notice.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Hasler & Co. v. Forde Construction Co.
10 Pa. D. & C. 641 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A. 513, 175 Pa. 235, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conshohocken-tube-co-v-western-new-york-pennsylvania-railroad-pa-1896.