Wray v. Tammany
13 Pa. 394
Opinion
An attachment under the act of 1836, is pro[396] cess to enforce the judgment; and it is, in substance, if not in form, an execution. It differs from a fieri facias essentially only in this, that it reaches effects, from which the debt could otherwise not be levied. It is usually called an attachment execution; but whatever the name, it is within the spirit and purview of the statute.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Wray v. Tammany, 13 Pa. 394 (Pa. 1850).
13 Pa. 394 (Wray v. Tammany) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Overbrook Heights Building & Loan Ass'n v. Wilson
5 A.2d 529 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1939)
Link Building & Loan Ass'n v. Melnick
189 A. 470 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Heller v. Goldsmith
14 Pa. D. & C. 746 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1930)
Kruska's Estate
7 Pa. D. & C. 273 (Northumberland County Orphans' Court, 1925)
Commonwealth v. Rarick
66 Pa. Super. 162 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1917)
Ellwanger v. Moore
55 A. 966 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1903)