2 Yeates 277
Decided March 15, 1798
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1798-03-15
A Domestic attachment had issued against the defendant by mistake ; it clearly appeared by affidavits, that ho kept his counting house in the city and had never absconded, but had gone abroad on urgent business, the nature of which was particularly stated to the court. Messrs. Tilghman and Thomas prayed that the attachment might he dissolved. Mr. Rawle for the plaintiffs, insisted, that previous notice should be given to the creditors.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1853
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1798-03-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1The affidavit on which a domestic attachment is grounded, has never been held to he conclusive. Such a doctrine would be attended with the most pernicious consequences. There seems no ground whatever to impeach the proofs adduced by the defendant; hut if any contrary proofs can be given, we will hear them. The giving notice to all the creditors, seems almost impracticable. The parties who have issued the process are hound to support it, when attached.
¶2Attachment dissolved.