Home/Supreme Court of Pennsylvania/Maris v. Schermerhorn

Maris v. Schermerhorn

3 Whart. 13, 1837 Pa. LEXIS 212
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedDecember 21, 1837
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 3 Whart. 13 (Maris v. Schermerhorn) 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
Maris v. Schermerhorn, 3 Whart. 13, 1837 Pa. LEXIS 212 (Pa. 1837).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We cannot force the sheriff to amend his return; but as the counsel for the garnishees has moved, that the sheriff have permission to amend, the motion will be granted. If he should not do so, the defendants and garnishees will not be injured; but on the return of the scire facias against them, the garnishees may show the facts, if they will be of any avail, presented in the affidavits filed.

Cited by Counsel, 1 Barr, 18.

Cited by the Court, 1 P. P. Smith, 252.

See also 5 Barr, 519.

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

Related

Cassell v. Revera, Inc.
25 Pa. D. & C. 37 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1935)
Rogers v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
99 Pa. Super. 505 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1930)
Buckman v. Somers
80 Pa. Super. 377 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
Dixon v. White Sewing M. Co.
18 A. 502 (Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, 1889)
Pennsylvania Railroad v. Pennock
51 Pa. 244 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1866)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Whart. 13, 1837 Pa. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maris-v-schermerhorn-pa-1837.