
    Pottash et al., Appellants, v. Red River Oil Co., Ltd.
    
      Carriers — Bills of lading — Act of June 9, 1911, P. L. 8S8— Foreign attachment — Equity—Injunction—Parties—Trial by jury —Constitution—Constitutional law.
    
    1. Service of an attachment upon the holder of a negotiable bill of lading is not sufficient compliance with section 24 of the Bills of Lading Act of June 9,1911, P. L. 838.
    2. The requirements of that section can be complied with, only by obtaining an injunction preventing the further negotiation of the bill. Not decided at what stage of the proceedings this is required.
    3. The efíect of an attachment is only to warn the garnishee that thereafter he must pay nothing to the defendant in the writ under penalty of possibly being required to make payment to plaintiff.
    4. A garnishee will not be held liable to the plaintiff, because, after service of an attachment, he returns to the real owner a negotiable instrument sent for collection but never in fact collected.
    5. The holder of a bill of lading, the alleged owner of it, the consignee of the goods and the carrier, are necessary parties to a bill in equity to prevent its negotiation.
    6. The Constitution does not guarantee trial by jury in regard to matters purely within the jurisdiction of chancery, or where new remedies are provided by statute.
    Argued April 25, 1922.
    Appeal, No. 352, Jan. T., 1922, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1921, No. 386, making absolute rule to dissolve foreign attachment, in case of Edward Pottash and Abraham Schneyer, copartners, trading as Philadelphia Cotton Co. v. Red River Oil Co., Ltd.
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Walling, Simpson, Sadler and Schaefer, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Buie to dissolve foreign attachment. Before Ferguson, J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Buie absolute. Plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Error assigned was above order, quoting record.
    
      D. B. Oliensis, and Francis 8hunk Brown, for appellants.
    
      Charles Myers, with him Sharswood Brinton, for the Pennsylvania Bailroad, appellee.
    
      Gill, Guckes & Shrader, for Baltimore & Ohio Bail-road, appellee.
    May 15, 1922:
   Opinion by

Mr. Justice Simpson,

The relevant facts in this case, and the question to be decided, are accurately set forth in appellant’s history of the case as follows: “This was an action commenced by foreign attachment in assumpsit. The sheriff, under that writ, seized several carloads of goods in the hands of the Pennsylvania Bailroad Company and the Baltimore and Ohio Bailroad Company. These goods had been shipped under negotiable bills of lading which were forwarded, with a draft attached thereto, to the Tenth National Bank for collection and, prior to the attachment of the goods, the sheriff [attempted to] attach those bills of lading in the hands of the bank [by leaving with it a copy of the writ]. All the garnishees duly entered their appearance. The two railroad companies subsequently filed petitions to dissolve the attachment on the ground that the bills of lading not having been surrendered, nor their negotiation enjoined, the attachment of the merchandise was invalid. The plaintiffs, in their answers, replied that the attachment of the bills of lading operated as an ‘enjoinder’ of the negotiation thereof, within the requirements of the law. The court made the rules absolute and the plaintiffs thereupon appealed to this court.”

We have decided this exact question antagonistically to appellants’ contention in Pottash et al v. Albany Oil Company, opinion filed herewith, [the preceding case] and need not here repeat what was there said.

The orders of the court below are affirmed.  