Holshue v. Morgan
Holshue v. Morgan
Opinion of the Court
Whether Mr. Burkert was a member of the bar admitted to practice in the courts of Northumberland county at the time the judgment of the Hooven Mercantile Co. was entered and the fi. fa. thereon was issued, or not, it is very certain he acted as the authorized agent of the plaintiff in what he did and without anjr objection or dissent on the part of the defendant. As a matter of fact the prothonotary did issue the writ of fi. fa. on the judgment, and when it came into the hands of the sheriff it was the lawful process of the court in due form, which he was as much bound to execute as he was to execute any other lawful process in his hands. We cannot recognize the right of strangers to interfere, without the sanction of the defendent, in such a case.
The affidavits of controversy raise no facts upon which an issue could be granted and were therefore properly disregarded by the learned court below.
Orders affirmed and appeals dismissed at the cost of appellants.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Galen F. Holshue v. W. T. Morgan C. H. Gleason, Trustee v. W. T. Morgan
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Executio?i- — Writ issued by attorney not qualified — Standing of junior execution creditors. Junior execution creditors have no standing to set aside a writ of execution because it was issued upon the prascipe of an attorney at law not admitted to practice in the county in which the writ issued. When the prothonotary accepts the prsecipe and issues the writ, it becomes the lawful process of the court which the sheriff is bound to execute; and with which the court will not recognize the right of strangers to interfere, without the sanction of the defendant.