Opinion

Catanzaro & Sons, Inc. v. Brown

  • 278 Pa. 548
  • 123 A. 491
  • 1924 Pa. LEXIS 441
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jan 7, 1924
Status
Published
On the bench
Frazer, Kephart, Sadler, Schaffer, Simpson, Walling
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 63.7%

The opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff’s action is a foreign attachment in assumpsit to recover the sum of $12,610 damages for failure to *549 carry out a contract to ship oranges from defendant’s place of business in California to plaintiff in Pittsburgh. The attachment names the William Penn Trust Company, Fort Pitt Fruit & Produce Company and others, all of Pittsburgh, as garnishees. The court below discharged defendant’s motion to quash, which alleged, inter alia, that the cause of action, as shown by plaintiff’s statement, “constitutes an unliquidated claim for damages without legally and definitely setting forth facts by which a claim for damages can be rendered definite and certain.” Defendant appealed. Whether the statement so far as it relates to damages sustained by defendant’s failure to ship oranges is sufficiently definite need not be considered at this time. To sustain the attachment reference need be made only to the paragraph in the statement which avers there is in the hands of one of the garnishees the sum of $1,300 belonging to defendant. This averment is ample to require the rule to quash to be discharged. The attachment being good as to any amount it cannot be dissolved either in whole or in part: Diamond City B. P. & B. Co. v. Murdock-James & Co., 270 Pa. 455 .

The appeal is dismissed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.