Hall v. Oyster

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May 20, 1895

Hall v. Oyster, 168 Pa. 399 (Pa. 1895)

31 A. 1007; 1895 Pa. LEXIS 810

Fell, Green, McCollum, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This so called appeal is in fact merely a certiorari, and must *401be so treated. It brings up for review nothing but the record proper, which does not include the evidence on which the court acted in dissolving the attachment. Under the act of 1869, that action of the court below-was a matter within its discretion, and we have nothing before us to show that the discretion was abused: Wetherald v. Shupe, 109 Pa. 389; Black v. Oblander, 15 Atl. Rep. 708; Hoppes v. Houtz, 133 Pa. 34.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellants.

Reference

Full Case Name: Eliza A. Hall, doing business as the Elk County Bank v. D. C. Oyster, doing business as the Ridgway Bank
Cited By: 6 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Attachment under act of 1869 — Dissolution—Discretion—Appeal—Review. An order dissolving an attachment issued under the act of March 17, 1869, P. L. 8, is within the discretion of the lower court, and not reviewable on certiorari.and appeal to the Supreme Court, where there is nothing on the record to show an abuse of discretion on the part of the court below.