Hayes v. Gillespie
35 Pa. 155
Opinion
In so severe a proceeding as a foreign attachment, we cannot doubt that the prescribed form of serving the writ, in order to attach real estate, must be strictly pursued. The law allows it to be served on a tenant in possession, “ holding under the defendantand we are very clear that where the defendant inherits the land subject to a curtesy estate, the tenant by the-curtesy does not hold under him in any proper sense. The service on him was therefore improper, and was rightly quashed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hayes v. Gillespie, 35 Pa. 155 (Pa. 1860).
35 Pa. 155 (Hayes v. Gillespie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
General Maintenance Engineers, Inc. v. Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp.
104 A.2d 505 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1954)
Knepp v. Elder
30 Pa. D. & C. 382 (Mifflin County Court of Common Pleas, 1937)
Airston v. Bollinger
7 Pa. D. & C. 414 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1925)
Buckman v. Somers
80 Pa. Super. 377 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)