Legal Opinion

E. J. Hart & Co. v. Blum

Texas Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1890No. 2659PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from Galveston. Tried below before Hon. Wm. H. Stewart.

1Opinion of the Court

HOBBY, Judge.

It appears from the record in this case that on the loth day of October, 1887, W. L. Austin, of the firm of Austin & Fisher, executed to the appellee, A. Blum, an instrument in writing, conveying to said Blum a stock of goods, wares, and merchandise which constituted the drug and medicine store of said Austin in the city of Galveston. The consideration recited in the instrument was an indebtedness due Blum of about 81650. It conveyed the property to appellee, “first, to pay himself the said sum of 81650, and all necessary expenses,” etc., incurred in converting the stock, etc.,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Johnson v. J. M. Robinson & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Schoolher, Bernstein & Co. v. HutchinsTexas Supreme Court · 1886
  3. W. L. Moody & Co. v. CarrollTexas Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Barber v. HutchinsTexas Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Field v. MunsterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1895
  2. Bean v. City of BrownwoodTexas Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Scott v. ChildersCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1900
  4. Casey & Swasey v. ChaytorCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1893
  5. Tittle v. VanleerTexas Supreme Court · 1896

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API