Contracts · MBE-tested
McGLENSEY and WOLFE vs. JOHN McLEAR, garnishee of GOLDSMIT and GOUDKOP
1 Del. 4661 Harr. 466·Delaware Superior Court·1834·DE
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
McGLENSEY and WOLFE vs. JOHN McLEAR, garnishee of GOLDSMIT and GOUDKOP.
Exoneretur entered on a bail-piece on it appearing that the principal had been di£charged by the insolvent laws of Pennsylvania.
Attachment.
Rule'to show cause why an exoneretur should not be entered on a bail piece.
The deft., McLear, was summoned as the garnishee of Goldsmit and Goudkop, on a writ of foreign attachment, at the suit of plffs,, against the said Goldsmit and Goudkop. The defts. appeared and put in special bail to the action, and thereby discharged the garnishee and dissolved the attachment. Dig. 46. The bail now applied for an exoneretur, on the ground that the defts. had, previously to the attachment, been regularly discharged under the insolvent laws of Pennsylvania. Both plffs. and defts. are residents of Pennsylvania.
Rogers, in support of the rule.
[MAJORITY — The Court]
The Court
at first doubted; but, on consideration, they made the rule absolute. See ante 183: Bailey vs. Seal’s special bail, and 8 T. Rep. 609.