Corson v. McAfee
| Decision Date | 19 February 1863 |
| Citation | 44 Pa. 288 |
| Parties | Corson and Andrews <I>versus</I> McAfee to use of Shelly. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
The defendants below are sued on their recognisance of bail for a stay of execution on a judgment, and no doubt they are released by terms of agreement for opening the judgment, if that agreement is valid as against Shelly, who now claims the right to the judgment.Whether it is or not, is the question to be decided.
There was no need of a jury trial in the case, for all the facts appear in the pleadings, though they are not so scientifically presented as to furnish a model of good pleading.They may be very briefly stated thus: —
After the principal judgment against Paxson was obtained, and after the defendants below became bail in it, the debt claimed by McAfee against Paxson was attached by an execution-attachment in favour of Shelly.After that, McAfee and Paxson entered into an agreement to open the judgment, retaining the lien of it, and to set aside all subsequent proceedings in it.Afterwards, Shelly obtained judgment against Paxson, as garnishee of McAfee, and got the judgment of McAfee v. Paxson marked to his use, and this is his title to sue the defendants below as bail of...
To continue reading
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Stalwart B. & L. Ass'n. v. Borbeck (Stenton B. & L. Ass'n.)
...also Croft v. Moore, 9 Watts 451; Baily v. Brownfield, 20 Pa. 41; Reimel v. Northwestern Trust Co., 304 Pa. 121, 155 A. 106. In Corson v. McAfee, 44 Pa. 288, McAfee had a against Paxson, and Shelly had a judgment against McAfee. Corson and Andrews became bail for Paxson for stay of executio......
-
Mengel v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co.
...535; Strayer v. Johnson, 110 Pa. 21; Fell v. Bennett, 110 Pa. 181. The case to which we refer and which controls this case is Corson et al. v. McAfee, 44 Pa. 288. Rice, P. J., Willard, Wickham, Beaver, Reeder, Orlady and Smith, JJ. OPINION REEDER, J. The method in which this case was heard ......
-
Wherry v. Wherry
...that an attaching creditor can claim subrogation to any of the collateral means held by his debtor for securing the debt attached: Corson v. McAfee, 44 Pa. 288. judgment for an entire sum payable at one time cannot be divided by an assignment of part thereof, so as to entitle the assignee t......
-
Goller
v.
Wass's Administrator.
...the debtor: Fessler v. Ellis et al., 40 Pa. 248. His attachment is his suit to reach the debt alleged to be due to his debtor: Corson v. McAfee, 44 Pa. 288, 291; Wherry v. Wherry, 179 Pa. 84, 88. The thirty-fifth section of the Act of June 16, 1836, P.L. 755, declares that a clause in the n......