9 April 1849 § 1. P. L. 533. What property to be exempt froin execution. Ibid. § 2. erty to the value of three hundred dollars, (b) exclusive of all wearing apparel of the defendant and his family, (c) and all Bibles and school-books in use in the family (which shall remain exempted as heretofore), and no more, owned by or in possession of any debtor, (d) shall be exempt from levy and sale on execution(e) or by distress for rent.(g) 30. The sheriff, constable or other officer charged with the execution of any warrant issued by competent authority, for the levying upon and selling the propquest of defendant. erty, either real or personal, of any debtor, shall, (h) if requested by the debtor,(i) Appraisers to be appointed, at re in a criminal case. Commonwealth v. Dougherty, 8 Phila. 366. (b) The exemption law must be so understood as to admit a dealer to enjoy $300 of his capital in trade; a new stock purchased with the proceeds of other articles retained under the exemption law, is protected. Hanley v. O'Donald, 30 P. S. 261. But partners are not severally entitled to retain out of partnership effects levied on, specific articles to the value of $300. Clegg v. Houston, 1 Phila. 352. It seems, however, that each partner is entitled to the exemption out of his separate property. Lippincott's Estate, 8 Phila. 236. A mortgagor is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption law, against his mortgagee, whether proceedings be had on the mortgage, or the accompanying bond. McAuley's Appeal, 35 P. S. 209. Gangwere's Appeal, 36 Ibid. 466. Morgan v. Noud, 1 Phila. 250. But after satisfying the mortgage, he may claim the balance of the proceeds, as against the judgment-creditors. Hill v. Johnston, 29 P. S. 362. A leasehold may be set apart to the defendant, under this act. Vankirk v. Allen, 1 W. N. C. 231. act. (c) An unmarried defendant is entitled to the benefit of the act. Dieffenderfer v. Fisher, 3 Gr. 30. A non-resident is not entitled to the benefit of this Snow v. Dill, 6 W. N. C. 330. Collom's Appeal, 12 Ibid. 309. Me Williams v. Newlin, 1 Chest. Co. 50. Horne v. Horne, 1 Del. 261. Contrà, Linsenmayer v. Smythe, 3 C. C. 400. (d) A defendant cannot claim the benefit of the exemption law out of property which he has conveyed in fraud to his creditors: the conveyance, though void as to the creditors, is nevertheless conclusive on the debtor, for all purposes. Huey's Appeal, 29 P. S. 219. Larkin v. McAnnally, 5 Phila. 17. Dieffenderfer v. Fisher, 3 Gr. 30. Emerson v. Smith, 51 P. S. 90. Carl v. Smith, 8 Phila. 569. He has no right to have appraised and set apart to him goods to which he disclaims title; nor can he maintain trespass against the officer for selling them; in such case, the execution-creditor has a right to test the ownership, by a sale, without other risk than the claim of the alleged owner. Gilleland v. Rhoads, 34 P. S. 187. The defendant, by falsely denying his ownership, though but for the purpose of gaining time for pay ment of the execution, forfeits his right to the benefit of the exemption law. Strouse's Executor v. Becker, 38 P. S. 190. And see Lorenz v. Wright, 6 W. N. C. 539. A sub-tenant, or assignee, not recognized by the landlord, cannot claim the benefit of the exemption, as against a distress for rent; the goods being levied on as those of the original lessee. Neither the relation of landlord and tenant, nor that of debtor and creditor, exists between such parties. Rosenberger v. Hallowell, 35 P. S. 369. Nor can a terre-tenant, who purchased subject to a judgment against his vendor. Eberhart's Appeal, 39 P. S. 509. (e) The act does not operate in favor of a defendant subject to be sued by a foreign attachment. Yelverton v. Burton, 26 P. S. 351. McCarthy's Appeal, 68 Ibid. 217. Snow v. Dill, 6 W. N. C. 330. Collom's Appeal, 12 Ibid. 309; s. c. 2 Penny. 130. Nor as against proceedings on a mechanic's lien. Lauck's Appeal, 24 P. S. 426. Building Association v. O'Connor, 3 Phila. 453. Or a mortgage, as against the mortgagee: for a mortgage is, in its nature, a contractwaiver of the right of exemption. Gangwere's Appeal, 36 P. S. 466. But a defendant, in proceedings on a mortgage, is entitled to the benefit of the law, so far as respects the surplus, after payment of the mortgagedebt, as against his other judgment-creditors. Hill v. Johnston, 29 P. S. 362. Quinn's Appeal, 86 Ibid. 447. A defendant may have the benefit of the law, as against an attachment-execution. Strouse's Executor v. Becker, 38 P. S. 190; s. c. 44 Ibid. 206. Waugh v. Burket, 3 Gr. 319. And see Bair v. Stein man, 52 P. S. 423. Ashton v. Glass, 9 Phila. 510. The defendant, in an attachment under the act 17 March 1869, is entitled to his exemption. Ashworth V. Addy, 7 W. N. C. 342. Washburn v. Baldwin, 10 Phila. 472. Pierce v. Landenberger, 40 L. I. 250. But the defendant cannot claim the exemption before judgment on an order to sell the goods as perishable. Martin v. Magarry, 8 W. N. C. 145. A claim made after the argument and decision upon a motion to dissolve is in time. Reigenstein v. Shafer, 8 Luz. Leg. Reg. 187. A claim is in time if made before the goods are advertised for sale under the judgment. Cornman's Appeal, 90 P. S. 255; it is sufficient that the defendant's claim of exemption be set up in the garnishee's answers to the interrogatories. Hilbrenner v. Steinberger, 4 W. N. C. 186. (g) The defendant may waive the benefit of the exemption. McKinney v. Reader, 6 W. 34. Bowyer's Appeal, 21 P. S. 210. Case v. Dunmore, 23 Ibid. 93. Winchester v. Costello, 2 Pars. 279. And when made at the time the debt is created, the waiver is based upon the same consideration as the liability to pay, and therefore, irrevocable. Case v. Dunmore, 23 P. S. 93. Bowman v. Smiley, 31 Ibid. 225; s. c. 3 Gr. 132. And is protected by the constitution from legislative interference. Billmeyer v. Evans, 40 P. S. 324. A defendant cannot, however, waive the benefit of the exemption law, in favor of a junior execution-creditor, so as to give him a preference over a prior levy on the same property. Garrett's Appeal, 31 P. S. 160. Knoll's Appeal, 11 W. N. C. 511. A waiver as to a single execution-creditor, is a waiver as to all. Lauck's Appeal, 44 P. S. 395. Forney's Appeal, 3 Luz. L. Obs. 84. See Bower's Appeal, 68 P. S. 126. Kehler v. Miller, 4 Leg. Gaz. 125. Bowman v. Tagg, 6 W. N. C. 220. Smith v. Ackerman, 38 L. I. 394. Jimison's Appeal, 1 Chest. Co. 571. Taylor v. Webb, 2 Ibid. 16. Nor can he assign it to a third person. Whatever he does not regularly claim for himself remains in the fund, to be distributed according to law. Bowyer's Appeal, 21 P. S. 210. Shelly's Appeal, 36 Ibid. 373. See Pittman's Appeal, 48 Ibid. 315. Hartman v. Hartman, 4 Brewst. 393. Thomas v. Meals, 28 L. I. 260. A verbal agreement to waive the benefit of the exemption law, made without consideration, is not binding on the debtor. Hoffman v. McDermond, 1 Pitts. 197. A prospective waiver will be inoperative, unless expressed in clear and unequivocal language. O'Nail v. Craig, 56 P. S. 161. See Kneettle v. Newcomb, 22 N. Y. 249. A claim of exemption, being a personal privilege, may be withdrawn, though the defendant be a public charge as a pauper. Overseers of White Deer's Appeal, 95 P. S. 191. S. P. Catterson's Appeal, 39 L. I. 296. (h) An officer refusing to allow the exemption, is a trespasser ab initio. Wilson v. Ellis, 28 P. S. 238. Freeman v. Smith, 30 Ibid. 264. And either case or trespass will lie against him. Van Dresor v. King, 34 P. S. 201. But the debtor's only remedy is by action; he acquires thereby no right to any portion of the proceeds of sale. Marks's Appeal, 34 P. S. 36. In such action, the debt cannot be defalked against the plaintiff's damages. Wilson v. McElroy, 32 P. S. 82. Freeman v. Smith, 30 Ibid. 264. But the title of the purchaser is not invalidated by the wrongful conduct of the officer in refusing the exemption. Hatch v. Bartle, 45 P. S. 166. See (i) The law has prescribed no form for making an election; it is enough, if made in such a way that the officer ought not to misunderstand. Keller v. Bricker, 64 P. S. 379. The claim must, generally, be made in the case which is the instrument of effecting the sale. Mc Afoose's Appeal, 32 P. S. 276. Dodson's Appeal, 25 Ibid. 232. Where several writs are in the sheriff's hands at the same time, one demand is sufficient, as against them all; but the rule is different as to successive writs. Bechtel's Appeal, 2 Gr. 375. In such case, he must make the claim on each particular execution. P. L. 533. summon three disinterested and competent persons, who shall be sworn or affirmed, 9 April 1849 § 2. to appraise() the property which the said debtor may elect to retain (1) under the provisions of this act, for which service the said appraisers shall be entitled to Property selected receive fifty cents each, to be charged as part of the costs of the proceedings; and appraised, to and property thus chosen and appraised to the value of three hundred dollars, shall be exempt from levy and sale on the said execution (m) or warrant, excepting warrants for the collection of taxes. be exempt. Ibid. §.3. 31. In any case where the property levied upon as aforesaid shall consist of real estate of greater value than three hundred dollars, and the defendant in such Proceedings where (execution) shall elect to retain real estate amounting in value to the whole sum real estate is levied of three hundred dollars, or any less sum, the appraisers aforesaid shall deter- on. mine whether, in their opinion, the said real estate can be divided, without injury to or spoiling the whole; and if the said appraisers shall determine that the said real estate can be divided as aforesaid, then they shall proceed to set apart so much thereof as, in their opinion, shall be of sufficient (value) to answer the requirement of the defendant in such case, designating the same by proper metes and bounds. All of which proceedings shall be certified in writing by the said appraisers, or a majority of them, under their proper hands and seals, to the sheriff, under-sheriff or coroner, charged with the execution of the writ in such case, who shall make return of the same to the proper court from which the writ issued, in connection with the said writ: Provided, That this section shall not be construed to affect or impair the liens of bonds, mortgages or other contracts for the purchase-money of the real estate of insolvent debtors.(n) Liens for purchasemoney not to be impaired. Ibid. § 4. due to be sold. Otherwise, defend 32. Upon return made of the writ aforesaid, with the proceedings thereon, the plaintiff in the case shall be entitled to have his writ of venditioni exponas as in other cases, to sell the residue of the real estate included in the levy aforesaid, if If divided, the resithe appraisers aforesaid shall have determined upon a division of the said real estate;(0) but if the said appraisers shall determine against a division of said real estate, the plaintiff may have a writ of venditioni exponas to sell the whole of ant to receive $300 the real estate included in such levy, and it shall and may be lawful, in the latter out of the proceeds. case, for the defendant in the execution to receive from the sheriff or other officer, of the proceeds of said sale, so much as he would have received at the appraised value, had the said real estate been divided.(p) Line's Appeal, 2 Gr. 197. Strouse's Executor v. Becker, 38 P. S. 190. It seems, that a claim for the benefit of the exemption, may be made, by a parol request to the sheriff, when absent from his office. Bowman v. Smiley, 31 P. S. 225. Diehl v. Holben, 39 Ibid. 213. It may be made, on behalf of an absent debtor, by his wife and counsel. Waugh v. Burket, 3 Gr. 319. McCarthy's Appeal, 68 P. S. 217. Meitzler's Appeal, 73 Ibid. 368. Or by any person left in charge of the premises, especially a child of proper age. Wilson v. McElroy, 32 P. S. 82. The demand must be made at such a time as to cause no delay to the plaintiff; in case of personal property, it must be made before the day of sale, and generally, before the advertisements are put up, unless there be special circumstances to excuse the delay. Diehl v. Holben, 39 P. S. 213. And see Hammer v. Freese, 19 Ibid. 255. Rogers v. Waterman, 25 Ibid. 182. Elliot v. Flanigan, 37 Ibid. 425. Strouse's Executor v. Becker, 44 Ibid. 206. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 56 Ibid. 402. Bancord v. Parker, 65 Ibid. 336. Dieffenderfer v. Fisher, 3 Gr. 30. Winchester v. Costello, 2 Pars. 279. Kee v. Hobensack, 2 Phila. 82. Yost v. Heffner, 69 P. S. 68. Boas v. Fendler, 2 Pears. 361. Chilcoat's Appeal, 101 P. S. 22. In case of real estate, the claim should be made before inquisition, or waiver of it. Miller's Appeal, 16 P. S. 300. Brant's Appeal, 20 Ibid. 141. Yardley v. Holby, 1 T. & H. Pr. § 1350. And before the expense of advertising is incurred. Bowyer's Appeal, 21 ̊P. S. 210. Kensel v. Kern, 4 Phila. 86. The object of the legislature was, to prevent the sale of the property; and every act or omission of the debtor, which amounts to an acquiescence in, or an affirmance of the sale, is in direct contravention of that object. Neff's Appeal, 21 P. S. 247. As against an attachment, a claim of exemption is in time, if made before the goods are advertised for sale under the judgment. Cornman's Appeal, 90 P. S. 255. (k) The court may set aside the appraisement, before the return of the writ, where it is manifestly below the market price. Sleeper v. Nicholson, 1 Phila. 348. Fisher v. Hughes, 2 Pitts. 272. And if the appraisement be not publicly conducted, it is sufficient cause for setting it aside. Huldy v. Sproule, 4 Phila. 343. For form of appraisement, &c., see Dunl. Forms, 514.988. Binns's Just. 434. For sheriffs' and constables' costs, see tit. "Fees." (1) Where the apparent value of the goods levied on is less than the amount exempted by law, it is unnecessary to make any further specification than is implied in the demand; at least, until after the appraisement. Wilson v. McElroy, 32 P. S. 82. (m) The court will not direct a vend. exp. to issue for the sale of property which the sheriff returns as claimed to be exempt by the defendant, but as to which the sheriff refuses to decide; the plaintiff may, in such case, issue his vend. exp. without an order, and, it seems, the sheriff would have a right to demand an indemnity before proceeding. Houston v. Smith, 1 Phila. 221. See Ferguson v. Moore, Ibid. 92. Thornton v. Aubrey Hotel Co., 5 W. N. C. 428. Kiker v. Walker, 7 Ibid. 521. If the goods set apart under the exemption law, be transferred by the defendant to another, without consideration, they are not protected against another execution-creditor, in the hands of the assignee. Yeager v. Nicholls, 7 Phila. 91. (n) This proviso applies only to a claim by the insolvent himself; it has no application on a question of distribution between judgment-creditors. Kyle's Appeal, 45 Penn. St. 353. A debtor is not entitled to exemption out of the proceeds of his real estate, as against lien-creditors whose judgments are for purchase-money; and hence, an approval of an appraisement, in such case, is not an adjudication of the defendant's right. Ulrich's Appeal, 84 P. S. 489. (0) A term must necessarily intervene between the appraisement and the sale. Bowyer's Appeal, 21 P. S. 210. (p) Where there is no election by the debtor to retain real estate, and consequently, no proceedings for the purpose of ascertaining whether it can be divided without injury to the whole, it is error to award to him any part of the proceeds. Weaver's Appeal, 18 P. S. 307. Sennickson v. Fulton, 1 Phila. 220. Shaeffer's Appeal, 101 P. S. 45. And an inquisition and appraisement had in one case, will not entitle the debtor to any portion of the proceeds of a sale under another execution, on which no claim was made. Dodson's Appeal, 25 Penn. St. 232. In no case, can the defendant entitle himself to any portion of the proceeds of the sale of personalty. Hammer v. Freese, 19 P. S. 255. Money awarded to a defendant, out of the proceeds of his real estate, is not liable to be attached in the hands of his attorney. Gery v. Ehrgood, 31 P. S. 329. But if the 9 April 1849 § 5. P. L. 533. 8 April 1857 § 1. P. L. 170. Sheriffs, &c., may swear appraisers. 8 April 1859 § 1. P. L. 425. 33. The provisions of this act shall not take effect until the 4th day of July next, and shall apply only to debts contracted on and after that date.(q) 34. It shall be lawful for the sheriff, deputy-sheriff or constable of any county or township, to administer the oath or affirmation required to be administered to appraisers, under the act to which this is a supplement. 35. Every person entitled to the exemption provided for in the act, entitled “ An act to exempt property to the value of three hundred dollars, from levy and sale on Exemption may be execution or distress for rent," approved the 9th day of April, Anno Domini 1849, taken in money or may elect to retain the same, or any part thereof, out of any bank-notes, money, stocks, judgments or other indebtedness to such person.(r) choses in action. 17 April 1869 § 1. P. L. 69. Sewing-machines. 4 March 1870 § 1. P. L. 85. When owned by private families. 13 May 1876 § 1. P. L. 171. Exemption of leased pianos, &c. 4 March 1887. P. L. 4. Not allowed on judgments for wages for $100 or less. 23 May 1887. P. L. 164. Assignments to non-residents, in order to deprive defendant of exemption, forbidden. Ibid. Liability of assignor. Not entitled to exemption. 4 April 1889. P. L. 23. No exemption on judgment for board. 16 June 1836 § 32. P. L. 767. 36. All sewing-machines belonging to seamstresses, in this commonwealth, shall be exempt from levy and sale on execution or distress for rent, in addition to any articles or money now exempt by law. 37. The act entitled "An act to exempt sewing-machines belonging to seamstresses, in this commonwealth, from levy and sale on execution or distress for rent," approved April 17th, Anno Domini 1869, shall, from and after the passage of this act, apply to all sewing-machines used and owned by private families in this commonwealth: Provided, That this act shall not apply to persons who keep sewing-machines for sale or hire. 38. All pianos, melodeons and organs, leased or hired by any person or persons residing in this commonwealth, shall be exempt from levy and sale on execution or distress for rent due by such person or persons so leasing or hiring any such piano or pianos, melodeon or melodeons, organ or organs, in addition to any articles or money now exempt by law: Provided, That the owner or owners of any such piano, melodeon or organ, or his or their agent, or the person or persons so leasing or hiring the same, shall give notice to the landlord or his agent that the instrument is leased or hired.(s) 39. No exemption of property from attachment, levy or sale upon execution shall be allowed upon judgment for one hundred dollars or less, obtained for wages for manual labor.(t) 40. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, being a citizen or citizens of this commonwealth, to assign or transfer any claim for debt against a resident of this commonwealth for the purpose of having the same collected by proceedings in attachment in courts outside of this commonwealth, or to send out of this commonwealth by assignment, transfer or other manner whatsoever, either for or without value, any claim for debt against any resident thereof, for the purpose or with the intent to deprive such persons of the right to have his personal earnings or property exempt from application to the payment of his debts according to the laws of this commonwealth, where the creditor and debtor and the person or corporation owing the money intended to be reached by such proceedings are within the jurisdiction of the courts of this commonwealth.(u) 41. The person or persons assigning or transferring any such claim for the purpose or with the intent aforesaid, shall be liable in an action of debt to the person or persons from whom any such claim shall have been collected by attachment or otherwise outside of the courts of this commonwealth, for the full amount of debt, interest and costs so collected, and the defendant or defendants therein shall not be entitled to the benefit of the exemption laws of this commonwealth upon any execution process issued upon any judgment recovered in any such action. 42. From and after the passage of this act, no exemption of property from levy and sale or attachment shall be allowed on judgment obtained for board for four weeks or less. (v) V. Attachment-execution. 43. The proceedings to levy an execution upon stock, debts and deposits of money belonging or due to the defendant, shall be as follows, to wit: in the case debtor sell the property exempt from execution, the money is liable to attachment in the hands of the purchaser; and so are the damages recovered by him, in an action of trespass for taking it in execution; for such recovery transfers the right of property, and has the effect of a sale. Knabb v. Drake, 23 P. S. 489. The debt, however, cannot be defalked against the plaintiff's claim for damages. Wilson v. McElroy, 32 P. S. 82. (q) The act 14 April 1851, § 17, P. L. 616, provides, that former laws exempting property from execution shall not be deemed repealed, so far as relates to debts and contracts made and entered into prior to the 4 July 1849. See Mardis v. Clarke, 19 P. S. 386. Smith's Appeal, 23 Ibid. 310. Weaver's Estate, 25 Ibid. 434. Harleman v. Buck, 30 Ibid. 267. Diehl v. Holben, 39 Ibid. 213. Smith's Appeal, 2 Pitts. L. J., 10 June 1854. (r) See Larrison's Appeal, 36 P. S. 130. Jones v. Tracy, 75 Ibid. 417. Bittinger's Appeal, 76 Ibid. 105. (s) The notice must be given to the landlord, when the leased instrument is placed upon the premises, or, at least, before the landlord's right to distrain has accrued. McGeary v. Mellor, 87 P. S. 461. (t) This is an amendment of the act 17 May 1883, $ 1, P. L. 34. Salary due the defendant for clerical services is not entitled to exemption, on attachmentexecution. Wilson v. Hasley, 7 Lanc. 98. (u) This act is constitutional. Sweeny v. Hunter, 145 P. S. 363. (v) Under this act, if the judgment be for four weeks' board or less, the defendant is not entitled to his exemption. Weisman v. Weisman, 133 P. S. 89. If a justice's record show a judgment for more than four weeks' board, the plaintiff cannot, by taking execution for but four weeks' board, deprive the defendant of his right of exemption. Tredennick v. of stock, if it shall be held in another name(w) than that of the real owner thereof, 16 June 1836 § 32. the plaintiff shall file in the office of the prothonotary of the court, an affidavit, P. L. 767. stating that he verily believes such stock to be really the property of the defendant, How stock held in and shall enter into (a) recognizance, with two sufficient sureties, conditioned for the name of anthe payment of such damages as the court may adjudge, to the party to whom such other person to be stock shall really belong, in case such stock should not be the property of the defendant.(x) levied on. Ibid. § 33. 44. Upon the filing of such an affidavit and recognizance, it shall be lawful for the prothonotary to issue process (y) in the nature of an attachment, against such stock, with a clause of summons to the person in whose name the same may be and recognizance, On filing affidavit held, in the nature of a writ of scire facias against garnishees in a foreign attach- attachment to ment; and thereupon, the plaintiff may proceed to judgment, execution and sale of the said stock, in the manner allowed in cases of foreign attachment against personal estate. issue. Ibid. § 45. The like proceedings may be had against stock owned by a defendant, and $34. held in his own name, without the affidavit and recognizance aforesaid; and if Proceedings any person shall claim to be the owner of such stock, he may, upon filing an against stock held affidavit that the stock is really his property, and entering into a recognizance, by defendant, and claimed by a third with two sufficient sureties, conditioned for the payment of such damages as the court may adjudge to the plaintiff, if such stock should really belong to the defendant, the court shall admit him to become a party upon the record, and take defence, in like manner as if he were made garnishee in the writ. 46. In the case of a debt due to the defendant,(z) or of a deposit of money Jones, 7 C. C. 548. This act does not apply to judgments obtained before its passage. Brown v. Reiser, 8 C. C. 416. (w) Where the defendant holds stock in his own name, the proceedings are under the act 29 March 1819, § 2 (infra 56), which is not repealed by the act of 1836. Lex v. Potter, 16 P. S. 295. Or by attachment under this act. Weaver v. Huntingdon and Broad Top Mountain Railroad Co., 50 P. S. 314. Bonafon v. Wyoming Canal Co., 4 Phila. 29. See Stoever v. Stoever, 3 W. N. C. 169. (x) See Mulford v. Weisgerber, 3 Luz. L. Reg. 99. (y) This process should issue from the court of the county where the garnishee resides. Cowden v. West Branch Bank, 7 W. & S. 432. It seems, that it need not be made returnable to the first return-day of the next term. Miner v. Walter, 8 Phila. 571. On an attachment against stock, an affidavit and recognizance are not requisite, unless there be an adverse element. Betts v. Towanda Gas & Water Co., 97 P. S. 367. (z) Debts in suit, and unsatisfied judgments, may be attached. Sweeny v. Allen, 1 P. S. 380. Crabb v. Jones, 2 M. 130. Walker v. Gibbs, 2 Dall. 212. McCarty v. Emlen, Ibid. 277. Debts due in presenti, but payable in futuro. Fulweiler v. Hughes, 17 P. S. 440. Kieffer v. Ehler, 18 Ibid. 388. A debt due to a non-resident, if the garnishee be within reach of our process. Furness v. Smith, 30 P. S. 520. A judgment in another state. Fithian v. N. Y. and Erie Railroad Co., 31 P. S. 114. A debt payable in city bonds. King v. Hyatt, 41 P. S. 229. Claims payable in specific articles. Collum v. Mason, 1 W. N. C. 298. Gill v. Snyder, 2 Ibid. 158. But not a due-bill payable in board. Peebles v. Meeds, 96 P. S. 150. A note deposited in pawn. Rhoads v. Megonigal, 2 P. S. 39. An over-due note, in the hands of the maker. Wetmore v. Price, 1 T. & H. Pr. § 1183. A note not matured; and in such case, the court will grant an injunction to restrain the holder from negotiating it. Kieffer v. Ehler, 18 P. S. 388. Kent v. Schuylkill Navigation Co., 1 T. & H. Pr. § 1183. But the attachment will not avail as against a holder to whom it was indorsed after the attachment, without notice. Hill v. Kroft, 29 P. S. 186. Day v. Zimmerman, 68 Ibid. 72. A loss incurred on a policy of insurance. Boyle v. Franklin Fire Insurance Co., 7 W. & S. 76. Franklin Fire Insurance Co. v. West, Ibid. 350; s. c. 2 Clark 70. Insurance Co. v. Field, 45 P. S. 129; 8. c. 4 Phila. 286. The proceeds of property in the hands of an assignee, under a void assignment. Stewart v. McMinn, 5 W. & S. 103. Wharton v. Grant, 5 P. S. 39. Mitchell v. Stiles, 13 Ibid. 307. Driesbach v. Becker, 34 Ibid. 152. And money in the hands of an attorney at law. Riley v. Hurst, 2 P. S. 346. Mitchell v. Stiles, 13 Ibid. 307. So, also, a partnership debt. McCarty v. Emlen, 2 Dall. 277; s. c. 2 Y. 190. Morgan v. Watmough, 5 Wh. 125. (But not a balance on an unsettled partnership account. Knerr v. Hoffman, 65 P. S. 126.) And the moiety of the cost of a party-wall. Davids v. Harris, 9 P. S. person. Ibid. § 35. 501. These are all liable to attachment; and if the garnishee receive money of the debtor, after the service of the writ, it is bound by the attachment. Silverwood v. Bellas, 8 W. 420. Sheets v. Hobensack, 20 P. S. 412. Mahon v. Kunkle, 50 Ibid. 216. But money levied by a sheriff or constable upon an execution, cannot be attached. Fretz v. Heller, 2 W. & S. 400. Mitchell v. Stiles, 13 P. S. 307. Crossen v. McAlister, 1 Clark 257. Bently v. Clegg, Ibid. 411. Worrell v. Vandusen Oil Co., 1 Leg. Gaz. 53. Nor money in the hands of a prothonotary. Ross V. Clarke, 1 Dall. 354. Or of a justice of the peace. Corbyn v. Bollman, 4 W. & S. 212. Or of an assignee in bankruptcy. Lloyd v. Brisben, 1 W. N. C. 230. Nor the surplus in the hands of a constable, after a sale under à distress for rent. Comfort v. Taylor, Binns's Just. 183. Nor money in the hands of a debtor of a decedent. Hartshorne v. Henderson, 3 Clark 511. McCoombe v. Dunch, 2 Dall. 73. Pringle v. Black's Executors, Ibid. 97. Williamson v. Beck, 8 Phila. 269. So, fees due a juror cannot be attached. Simons v. Whartenaby, 2 Clark 438. Or those due any public officer. Hutchinson v. Gormley, 48 P. S. 570. Nor the salary of a public officer. Rundle v. Scheetz, 2 M. 330. Nor the commissions of an executor, either in his own hands, or in those of his co-executors. Adams's Appeal, 47 P. S. 94. Nor money held by the treasurer of a board of school directors. Bulkley v. Eckert, 3 P. S. 368. Or by a supervisor of a state canal and railroad. Pierson v. McCormick, 1 Clark 260. And see Buchanan v. Alexander, 4 How. 20. Nor a balance of an unsettled partnership account. Knerr v. Hoffman, 65 P. S. 126. Alter v. Brooke, 9 Phila. 258. Nor can a bequest to a wife be attached for the debt of the husband. Dennison v. Nigh, 2 W. 90. Robinson v. Woelpper, 1 Wh. 179. Or damages recovered in the joint names of husband and wife, for an injury to the person of the wife, during coverture. Jeanes v. Davis, 3 Clark 60. Nor can a municipal corporation be made garnishee. Erie v. Knapp, 29 P. S. 173. Keeley v. Murray, 1 T. & H. Pr. § 1187. Greer v. Rowley, 1 Pitts. 1. Pettibone v. Beardslee, 1 Kulp 180. Van Valkenburgh v. Earley, Ibid. 216. See Hower v. Richardson, 3 W. N. C. 274. Or a foreign corporation. Barron v. Morrison, 2 T. & H. Pr. § 2258. Unless authorized to transact business in this state. Barr v. King, 96 P. S. 485. But although debts due by the federal, state and municipal governments cannot be attached in their hands, yet the bonds of a municipal corporation, belonging to a debtor, may be attached in the hands of a third person, and sold, in the same manner as stocks, in discharge of the execution. King v. Hyatt, 41 P. S. 229. And see Hawley v. Lumberman's Bank, 10 W. 230. Nesmith v. Drum, 8 W. & S. 9. Ross v. Cowden, 7 Ibid. 376. Pellman v. Hart, 1 P. S. 263. Christmas v. Biddle, 13 Ibid. 223. Vincent v. Watson, 18 Ibid. 96. Gochenaur's Executors v. Hostetter, Ibid. 419. Fowler v. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railroad Co., 35 Ibid. 22. Fabars v. Welsh, 1 Clark 367. P. L. 767. 16 June 1836 § 35. made by him, or of goods or chattels pawned, pledged or demised, as aforesaid, the same may be attached and levied in satisfaction of the judgment, in the How debts, depos- manner allowed in the case of a foreign attachment;(a) but in such case, a clause, in the nature of a scire facias against a garnishee in a foreign attachment, shall levied on. pawned, &c., to be be inserted in such writ of attachment, requiring such debtor, depositary, bailee, its, and goods Attachment to issue. Ibid. § 36. How attachment to be served. Ibid. § 37. Effect thereof. 15 April 1845 § 5. P. L. 460. pawnee or person holding the demise as aforesaid, (b) to appear at the next term of the court, or at such other time as the court from which such process may issue shall appoint, and show cause why such judgment shall not be levied of the effects of the defendant in his hands. (c) 47. It shall be the duty of the officer charged with the execution of such writ, to serve a copy thereof upon the defendant(d) in such judgment, and upon every person and corporation within his proper county, named in the said writ of attachment, (e) in the manner provided for the service of a writ of summons in a personal action.(g) 48. From and after the service of such writ, all stock belonging to the defendant in the corporation, upon which service shall be so made, and all debts and all deposits of money, and all other effects belonging or due to defendant, by the person or corporation upon which service shall be so made, shall remain attached in the hands of such corporation or person, in the manner heretofore practised and allowed in the case of foreign attachment.(h) 49. Provided, however, That the wages of any laborers, or the salary of any Wages, &c., not to person in public or private employment, shall not be liable to attachment in the hands of the employer.(i) be attached. 16 June 1836 § 38. P. L. 768. How execution in such attachment to be had. 50. If judgment shall be given for the plaintiff in such attachment,(k) it shall be lawful for him to have execution thereof as follows, to wit: I. If the property attached be stock in a corporation, as aforesaid, the execution shall be by a writ of fieri facias against the original defendant, by virtue of which, such stock, or so much thereof as shall be necessary to satisfy the judgment and costs, may be sold by the sheriff, as in other cases. II. If the property attached be a deposit in money, or a debt due, as aforesaid, execution shall be had in the manner allowed in the case of effects in the hands of 13 April 1943 § 10. a garnishee in a foreign attachment. P. L. 235. 51. All legacies (1) given and lands devised to any person or persons, and any (a) The writ need not state the kind or nature of the property to be attached. Layman v. Beam, 6 Wh. 181. But the contents of a safe, rented from a safe-deposit company, cannot be attached. Gregg v. Hilson, 8 Phila. 91. Nor horses and carriages in the hands of a livery-stable keeper. Hall v. Filter Man. Co., 10 Phila. 370. Nor goods deposited for storage with a warehouseman. Lennig's Appeal, 9 W. N. C. 503. (b) The debtor himself must be made the garnishee, not the person who merely holds the evidence of the debt. Raiguel v. McConnell, 25 P. S. 362. An attachment may issue against a fraudulent grantee of chattels. French v. Breidelman, 2 Gr. 319. But not against one who has but a lien upon the property. Buckner v. Croissant, 3 Phila. 219. (c) An attachment against a railroad company cannot be levied on money in the hands of its ticketagents, arising from the sale of tickets; they are not to be deemed third parties in respect to such moneys; their receipt is the receipt of the company itself. Fowler v. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railroad Co., 35 P. S. 22. And see Reed v. Penrose's Executrix, 36 Ibid. 214. Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank v. Ryan, 64 Ibid. 236. (d) By act 29 April 1844, P. L. 512, service of an attachment to be considered valid, except where it had already been set aside, without service on the defendant, in case he resided out of the county, or service could not have been made upon him by the officer, in his bailiwick. And by act 15 March 1847, P. L. 397, cases where the garnishee had, before the passage of the act 29 April 1844, paid the original defendant, or returned to him the goods, &c., in his possession, or where bona fide assignments had been made to third persons, without notice of the attachment, were excepted from the operation of the act of 29 April 1844, validating such defective service. Service on non-resident defendants is now dispensed with, by act 20 March 1845; infra 54. And see Lorenz's Administrators v. King, 38 P. S. 93, as to acceptance of service. (e) Several garnishees may be joined in one writ. Cornelius v. Simpson, 3 Phila. 35. (g) Judgment by default cannot be taken against the garnishee, until four days after the return-day of the writ. Latshaw v. Robinson, 2 Chest. Co. R. 312. (h) An attaching-creditor stands in the shoes of his debtor; and any equities that could be set up against the latter, are equally available against the former. Patten v. Wilson, 34 P. S. 299. The attachment in no way interferes with any right of the garnishee, but leaves to him all the rights of set-off defalcation, or defence, incident to the relations of the parties at the time of service. Myers v. Baltzell, 37 P. S. 491. See Norcross v. Benton, 38 Ibid. 217. Fessler v. Ellis, 40 Ibid. 248. The garnishee is not liable for interest during the pendency of the attachment; and if he admit the debt, he recovers costs. Irwin v. Pittsburgh and Connellsville Railroad Co., 43 P. S. 488. Jackson's Executors v. Lloyd, 44 Ibid. 82. Rushton v. Rowe, 64 Ibid. 63. Where a judgment has been attached, the court will stay proceedings until the attachment is disposed of. Parson v. Sanderson, 1 Phila. 177. And see, as to the practice on an attachment-execution, 1 T. & H. Pr. § 1197-1209. plaintiff may issue a second attachment, whilst a former one is pending and undetermined. Pontius v. Nesbit, 40 P. S. 309. But several attachments, issued and served on the same day, are to be paid pro rata. Baldwin's Appeal, 86 P. S. 483. A (i) This proviso is a general law, applicable to all judgments, whether entered in the common pleas, or on the docket of a justice. Catlin v. Ensign, 29 P. S. 264. See Heebner v. Chave, 5 Ibid. 117. Pennsylva nia Coal Co. v. Costello, 33 Ibid. 241. Scott v. Watson, 36 Ibid. 342. Smith v. Brooke, 49 Ibid. 147. This exemption cannot be waived. Cunliffe v. Rinehart, 2 W. N. C. 679. Jones v. Garoway, 6 Luz. L. Reg. 17. The wages of non-resident laborers are not attachable. Billin v. Froment, 3 C. C. 450. See the act of 8 May 1876, P. L. 139, under the tit. "Wages." (k) A verdict and judgment against the garnishee is not conclusive, in a subsequent action by the trus tees in insolvency of the original defendant, against the garnishee. Tams v. Bullitt, 35 P. S. 308. Nor is it a bar to a recovery by another creditor, against the same person, as garnishee of the same defendant. Lewis v. Tams, 4 Phila. 276. Nor will a judgment in favor of the garnishee have such effect. Breading v. Siegworth, 29 P. S. 396. () Where a testatrix bequeathed a sum of money, in trust to pay the interest thereon, annually, to A. B., for his use and benefit, such interest is liable to at |