Beal v. Smith
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Houston. Suit by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, on a bond which was as follows : Georgia, i Know all men by these presents, that we, Decatur County, j Henry Lockhart and William H. Young, using the name and style of Lockhart & Young, and Benjamin M. Griffin and William S. Beal, are held and firmly bound unto John T. Smith, plaintiff in fi.fa’s, in the just and MI sum of twenty-four hundred dollars, for the true payment of which we bind…
Read the full summary
Error from Houston. Suit by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, on a bond which was as follows : Georgia, i Know all men by these presents, that we, Decatur County, j Henry Lockhart and William H. Young, using the name and style of Lockhart & Young, and Benjamin M. Griffin and William S. Beal, are held and firmly bound unto John T. Smith, plaintiff in fi.fa’s, in the just and MI sum of twenty-four hundred dollars, for the true payment of which we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents, sealed with our seals,…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The grounds mainly relied on for a reversal of the judgment are, 1st. That there was not sufficient evidence of the forfeiture of the bond; 2nd. That it does not appear that the Justice of the Peace, whose judgment is relied on to establish the forfeiture, had jurisdiction to try and determine the right of property. The bond was conditioned for the delivery of the property, in the event that it should be found sub*308ject to “ the said fi. fa’s and there is much force in the argument, that there could be no breach of the condition, according to the evident import of its terms, until the property…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Thomas v. RobinsonNew York Supreme Court · 1829
3Cited by3 opinions
- Banister v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Glass v. BlackwellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Clark v. Dyer Fruit Box Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1926