Mines v. C. & J. Pyle
This text of 9 Del. 646 (Mines v. C. & J. Pyle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The Court,
(Gilpin,C.J., absent) charged the jury that the Court could not instruct them, as requested by the counsel for the plaintiff, that the agreement of the garnishees in the case to prepay the wages to Johnson as proved, and their prepayment of them pursuant to that agreement, was either a fraud upon the rights of the plaintiff in the suit and in the writ of attachment in question, or as against the object or policy of the statute under which it was issued, or was unlawful and void for either of those reasons, particularly as it appeared from the evidence and had not been denied, that the agreement was entered into a week before the attachment was laid in their hands, and the pre-payments of Johnson’s weekly wages pursuant to the terms of it had since been regularly made by them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 Del. 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mines-v-c-j-pyle-delsuperct-1874.