Donoghue v. Hanley

Citations

• 5 Sadler 592

Syllabus

<p>A judgment in an attachment suit against a nonresident of the state In which defendant’s goods were attached, but he was not personally served, is good as a personal judgment against him, where the record shows a general appearance by attorneys for him in the suit without any restriction or limitation and that, by consent of counsel on both sides, a jury of inquest was awarded to assess the damages; and such judgment is sufficient upon which to enter judgment against a garnishee.</p> <p>Cited in Lansford v. Jones, 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 262, 5 Pa. Dist. R. 483; Jennings v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 3 Lack. Legal News, 104.</p> <p>Not®. — Por the report of a case brought in Maryland to enforce the judgment referred to herein, reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States on error, see Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S. 1, 29 L. ed. 535, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 242.</p> <p>The defendant in a foreign attachment may enter an appearance for a special purpose. Turner v. Larkin, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 284, 7 Del. Co. Rep. 543. But if a general appearance be entered, there is a waiver of irregularities in the process (Memphis, C. & L. R. Co. v. Wilcox, 48 Pa. 161; Crowe v. Davis, 33 W. N. C. 103; Malone v. Lindsley, 1 Phila. 288; Atlas S. S. Co. v. United States Eoreign & Domestic Eruit Co. 2 Pa. Co. Ct. 123) ; or of objection to the sufficiency of the affidavit of cause of action (Lansford v. Jones, 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 261, 5 Pa. Dist. R. 483).</p>