Ceraline Manufacturing Co. v. Anthracite Beer Co.
Citations
- 25 Pa. Super. 94
- 1904 Pa. Super. LEXIS 21
Syllabus
<p>Liquor law — Brewing companies — Sale in other counties — Attachment under act of 1869.</p> <p>It does not follow that because a brewing company has no license in a particular county, it cannot sell its product in that county. It has the right to accept orders from the residents of that county, and deliver to the persons ordering. If it is prevented from filling the order by an illegal attachment of its beer it may recover damages for the injuries sustained from the person issuing the attachment.</p> <p>Attachment under the act of 1869 — Dissolution—Liability on bond.</p> <p>Where two attachments under the act of 1869 are issued at practically the same time, and both are subsequently dissolved, the fact that the defendant settled with the second attaching creditor for damages growing out of the attachment, will not relieve the first attachment creditor for injuries occasioned by his attachment.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “If an action should be commenced against one claiming to be sheriff, for an act which he does not justify, but as sheriff ... the legality of his commission might come in question, and meet a regular decision”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Beaver, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Porter, Rice, Smith
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.