Christmas v. Biddle
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Fritsch v. Buckman (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1933)
- Moys v. Union Trust Co. (Pa. 1923)
- Mills v. Jacobs (Pa. Super. Ct. 1938)
- Cherkasky ex rel. Domsky v. Pride (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1928)
- Wiener v. American Insurance Co. of Boston (Pa. Super. Ct. 1909)
- Glenny v. Boyd (Pa. Super. Ct. 1904)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The attachment process is a proceeding in rem,
To hold the contrary would do absolute injustice to our own citizens, by making them accountable for the whole value of the stock which they were empowered to sell, inasmuch as they could not produce it to be sold on a fi. fa., and as a sale on such process would be an idle and void ceremony. Moreover, it would discourage commerce and trade, to hold that such a power to sell bank stock was attachable without being of any service to the attaching creditor, for the process would be wholly valueless and insufficient in Mississippi, to transfer the title to the stock in the Planters Bank of that State.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.