Tams v. Wardle

5 Watts & Serg. 222
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 15, 1843·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff can only have one satisfaction, and is entitled to all process necessary to obtain that. The mere issuing of an-attachment is not itself so inconsistent with a fieri facias, on which no levy appears, to have been made, as to . be improper. Perhaps no levy in fact has been made on the alias fieri facias, or if there has, yet the property was subject to prior levies, or for other reasons it may not yield the plaintiff’s debt. In that case it would be unjust to tie his hands, and leave other creditors, to- intervene. If any circumstance exists entitling the defendant to relief, it must be shown. But as the case is, there is no ground for the motion.

Rule discharged.

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

Tams v. Wardle, 5 Watts & Serg. 222 (Pa. 1843).

5 Watts & Serg. 222 (Tams v. Wardle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Childs v. United Traction Co.
17 Pa. D. & C. 513 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1931)
Progressive C. Co. v. Friedman Balasny
81 Pa. Super. 151 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Stiffler's Estate
79 Pa. Super. 361 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Heath v. Page
63 Pa. 108 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1870)
Tome's Appeal
50 Pa. 285 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1865)
Dobbin v. Allegheny
7 F. Cas. 779 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania, 1860)
Kase v. Kase
34 Pa. 128 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1859)