Bulkley v. Eckert, 3 Pa. 368 (Pa. 1846). · Go Syfert
Bulkley v. Eckert, 3 Pa. 368 (Pa. 1846). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tioga Pipe Supply Co. v. Savlov (pactcompldauphi, 1969-08-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1911 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1911 1968 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tioga Pipe Supply Co. v. Savlov
pactcompldauphi · 1969 · confidence medium
The rationale behind the general rule as stated first in Bulkley v. Eckert, 3 Pa. 368, 369 (1846), is that: “Great public inconvenience would ensue, if money could be thus arrested in the hands of officers, and they be made liable to all the delay, embarrassment, and trouble that would ensue, from being stopped in the routine of their business, compelled to appear in court, employ counsel, and answer interrogatories, as well as take care that the proceedings are regularly carried on, and bail to return duly given.” * In City of Erie v. Knapp, 29 Pa. 173 (1857), the court said, on page 174:…
cited Cited "see" United States v. King
E.D. Pa. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bulkley v. Eckert, 3 Pa. 368 (1846).
cited Cited "see" Buchholz v. Cam
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bulkley v. Eckert, 3 Pa. 368 (1846).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Weicht v. Automobile Banking Corp.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1945 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Riley v. Hirst, 2 Pa. 346 , and Bulkley v. Eckert, 3 Pa. 368 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bulkley
v.
Eckert
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jul 24, 1846.
3 Pa. 368
Pleasant, for plaintiff in error, and, Hegins, for defendant in error,
Sergeant.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published
Sergeant, J.

The person in whose hands this claim was attached, held the moneys in his official capacity as treasurer of the board of school directors, in common with other money, to be applied towards the payment of teachers, according to the rules and regulations of the acts of Assembly for the maintenance of public schools, and not as a private debt due from him to the defendants. His situation does not appear to us to be distinguished from that of a sheriff or prothonotary,. who has money in his hands as a public officer; and it has been determined that these are not liable to the process of attachment. Great public inconvenience would ensue, if money could be thus arrested in the hands of officers, and they be made liable to all the delay, embarrassment, and trouble that would ensue, from being stopped in the routine of their business, compelled to appear in court, employ counsel, and answer interrogatories, as well as take care that the proceedings are regularly carried on, and bail to return duly given. If a precedent of this kind were set, there seems no reason why the state or county treasurers, or other fiscal officers of the Commonwealth, or of municipal bodies, may not be subjected to the levying of attachments, which has never been attempted nor supposed to come within the attachment law. We do not, therefore, think this is such a debt as is contemplated by that law.

The judgment is affirmed.