Case Name: Bletz versus Haldeman
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1856
Citations: 26 Pa. 403
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bletz versus Haldeman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 403–404

Head Matter:
Bletz versus Haldeman.
An assignee for the benefit of creditors, although not a party to the record, may appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace against a garnishee, on an attachment execution issued against the assignor.
Error to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county.
This was an attachment execution, issued before a justice of the peace on a judgment at the suit of Frederick S. Bletz, with notice to C. S. Kaufman and B. A. Price, garnishees.
The judgment was obtained on the 31st January, 1855. .On the 2d April, 1855, the attachment was issued, and on the 9th, upon hearing, the justice entered judgment for the plaintiff against the garnishees for f62.04. Peter Haldeman, the defendant, had previously executed an assignment for the benefit of his creditors, which had been duly recorded.
The assignee appeared and defended, and after judgment appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff’s counsel moved to strike off the appeal, on the grounds that it was out of time, without authority, and not by the proper persons. This rule, on argument, was made absolute.
The assignee, John P. Shroder,'sued out this writ, and assigned the action of the court in striking off the appeal for error.
Fordney, Franlclin, and Reynolds, for plaintiff.
Frazer, contra.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Knox, J.
There was error in striking off the appeal entered by John E. Shroder, the assignee of Peter Haldeman. Although not a party to the record, he was the real party in interest. It would certainly have been more regular if the assignee had applied for leave to defend before judgment was entered by the justice against the garnishees. We are not however, disposed to hold parties strictly to forms in proceedings before justices of the peace. Informally the assignee was admitted to defend, for it appeai-s upon the transcript that his agent appeared before the justice, and gave in evidence a certified copy of the assignment from the recorder's office. The judgment of the justice unappealed from would have been conclusive alike upon the assignee and the garnishee.
By the appeal the assignee is in court, and as the garnishees admit the existence of the debt, the issue should be between the attaching creditor and the assignee.
The order of the court striking off the appeal is set aside, and procedendo awarded.