Case ID: pa-super_8/html/0204-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Smith, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William R. Parshall v. William M. Graham, Appellant. Richard G. Potter v. Wiliam M. Graham, Appellant. Robert B. Harris v. William M. Graham, Appellant. John McNeely v. William M. Graham, Appellant. A. J. Dye v. William M. Graham, Appellant. J. A. Glass v. William M. Graham, Appellant. Charles Nelson v. William M. Graham, Appellant. J. F. Boor v. William M. Graham, Appellant.
    Submitted April 18, 1898.
    Appeals, Nos. 122-129, April T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Greene Co., June T., 1897, Nos. 41, 42, 43, 107, 127 and Oct. T., 1897, Nos. 12, 13, 23, discharging rule to show cause why the attachment should not be dissolved.
    Before Rice, P. J., Wickham, Beaver, Reeder, Orlady, Smith and Porter, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    The cases of Charles S. Potter, William R. Parshall, Richard G. Potter and Robert B. Harris, respectively, are identical in every way except as to the amounts claimed.
    The case of John McNeely is substantially the same as the case of Charles S. Potter, except as to the date of bringing action, the amount and character of the claim and that the affidavit for attachment also averred that the defendant was about to assign and dispose of his property with intent to defraud his creditors.
    The cases of A. J. Dye, J. A. Glass, Charles Nelson and J. F. Boor are similar to that of John McNeely, except as to the date of bringing the suit, the amount and character of the claim, and that the suit of Glass is founded on a protested check given by Graham.
    July 29, 1898:
    
      A. Leo. Weil, with him James F. Sayers and Qhas. M. Thorp, for appellant.
    
      James J. Pwrman, with him Fay $ Axtell, A. F. Silveus, F. J. Fonner and W. L. Ootterrell, for appellees.
   In each of these cases the court,

Smith, J.,

filed the following opinion

The facts and proceedings in this case are substantially the same as those in the case of Charles S. Potter v. William M. Graham, No. 121, April term, 1898. For reasons there given this judgment is affirmed.