Miller v. Snyder

Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas

Miller v. Snyder

19 A. 309, 133 Pa. 23, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 864

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lebanon County

DecidedMarch 3, 1890

DocketNo. 382

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A. 309 (Miller v. Snyder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lebanon County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Snyder, 19 A. 309, 133 Pa. 23, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 864 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The attachment in this case was issued by a justice of the peace of Berks county upon the transcript of a judgment obtained before a justice in Lebanon county. We need not discuss the effect of filing the transcript before the justice in Berks, as neither justice, as his docket stood, had the right to issue an attachment. The second section of the act of April 15, 1845, P. L. 459, enacts that “any alderman or justice of the peace, before whom any judgment remains unsatisfied, and an execution has returned no goods, may, on the application of the plaintiff, and his compliance with the requisitions of the act to which this is a supplement, issue an attachment in the nature of an execution, as therein provided, to levy upon stock, debts and deposits of money belonging, or due to the defendant, in satisfaction of said judgment.” It will thus be seen that an execution, and a return thereto of “ no goods,” is a prerequisite to an attachment execution before a justice. Whatever might have been the plaintiff’s right to take his transcript and use it in Berks county, he could not have had [27]*27an attachment in Lebanon county without this prerequisite; much less can he have an attachment upon his transcript in Berks county without it. The learned judge below committed no error in entering judgment upon the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The attachment in this case was issued by a justice of the peace of Berks county upon the transcript of a judgment obtained before a justice in Lebanon county. We need not discuss the effect of filing the transcript before the justice in Berks, as neither justice, as his docket stood, had the right to issue an attachment. The second section of the act of April 15, 1845, P. L. 459, enacts that “any alderman or justice of the peace, before whom any judgment remains unsatisfied, and an execution has returned no goods, may, on the application of the plaintiff, and his compliance with the requisitions of the act to which this is a supplement, issue an attachment in the nature of an execution, as therein provided, to levy upon stock, debts and deposits of money belonging, or due to the defendant, in satisfaction of said judgment.” It will thus be seen that an execution, and a return thereto of “ no goods,” is a prerequisite to an attachment execution before a justice. Whatever might have been the plaintiff’s right to take his transcript and use it in Berks county, he could not have had [27]*27an attachment in Lebanon county without this prerequisite; much less can he have an attachment upon his transcript in Berks county without it. The learned judge below committed no error in entering judgment upon the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A. 309, 133 Pa. 23, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-snyder-pactcompllebano-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack