Spencer v. Bloom

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Spencer v. Bloom

24 A. 185, 149 Pa. 106, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1071

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 2, 1892

DocketAppeal, No. 96

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 24 A. 185 (Spencer v. Bloom) 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

Spencer v. Bloom, 24 A. 185, 149 Pa. 106, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1071 (Pa. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Chiee Justice Paxson,

The affidavit in this case, upon which the attachment was issued, is more specific than that in Gates v. Bloom decided herewith. [The next case.] It charges the fraud in the language of the act of 1842, which would seem to be sufficient, under the authority of Gosline v. Place, 32 Pa. 520, where it was held: “ That it is sufficient that the affidavit set forth a case of fraud in general terms ; it is enough, in the first instance, that it show probable cause to the satisfaction of the judge, for, on the hearing, the defendant may, on oath, deny all the allegations, and demand full proof of the facts: ” See also Berger v. Smull, 39 Pa. 302. We think the affidavit was sufficient to give the justice jurisdiction. The jurisdiction having properly attached it was error to quash the attachment. Mere irregularities cannot be taken advantage of on the appeal. The remedy in such cases is by certiorari.

The judgment is reversed, and a procedendo awarded.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Chiee Justice Paxson,

The affidavit in this case, upon which the attachment was issued, is more specific than that in Gates v. Bloom decided herewith. [The next case.] It charges the fraud in the language of the act of 1842, which would seem to be sufficient, under the authority of Gosline v. Place, 32 Pa. 520, where it was held: “ That it is sufficient that the affidavit set forth a case of fraud in general terms ; it is enough, in the first instance, that it show probable cause to the satisfaction of the judge, for, on the hearing, the defendant may, on oath, deny all the allegations, and demand full proof of the facts: ” See also Berger v. Smull, 39 Pa. 302. We think the affidavit was sufficient to give the justice jurisdiction. The jurisdiction having properly attached it was error to quash the attachment. Mere irregularities cannot be taken advantage of on the appeal. The remedy in such cases is by certiorari.

The judgment is reversed, and a procedendo awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A. 185, 149 Pa. 106, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spencer-v-bloom-pa-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack