McKee v. Christman

103 Pa. 431, 1883 Pa. LEXIS 186
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 14, 1883·No. No. 338·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was filed

Per Curiam.

The judgment under which this contention arises was not recovered on an ordinary debt. It was for a tax levied against the plaintiff in error which he had neglected or refused to pay. As it was confessedly unpaid, his liability therefor had never been discharged, lie is in no position to claim that his property shall not be liable to seizure on execution for its collection in like manner as if taken on a warrant of the collector. Although the maimer of proceeding to collect the tax is changed, yet it is nevertheless a tax, and against the collection thereof the $300 exemption law cannot be successfully invoked.

Judgment affirmed.

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

McKee v. Christman, 103 Pa. 431, 1883 Pa. LEXIS 186 (Pa. 1883).

103 Pa. 431 (McKee v. Christman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Monaca Borough School District v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
50 Pa. D. & C. 671 (Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, 1943)
Van Meter v. Moore
30 Pa. D. & C. 459 (Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, 1937)
Creswell v. Montgomery
13 Pa. Super. 87 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1900)