Pancake v. Harris

10 Serg. & Rawle 109, 1823 Pa. LEXIS 53
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 14, 1823·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In the attachment Parleer the action is debt on the act of assembly; which is erroneous: the act is inapplicable to attachments. At present however, the declaration is the principal subject of consideration. This in its commencement pursues the form of a declaration in debt, but the body and conclusion are strictly in the form of a declaration in assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The judgment in the attachment therefore not being for a liquidated sum, the plaintiff could recover nothing from the garnishee without having executed a writ of inquiry of damages; and the court was right in so directing the jury. The bill of exceptions to evidence not being sustained the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pancake v. Harris, 10 Serg. & Rawle 109, 1823 Pa. LEXIS 53 (Pa. 1823).

10 Serg. & Rawle 109 (Pancake v. Harris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hampton v. Matthews
14 Pa. 105 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1850)
Thornton v. Bonham
2 Pa. 102 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1845)
Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Little
8 Watts & Serg. 207 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1844)