Iglehart v. Moore
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Anderson. Tried below before Hon. J. H. Reagan. The defendant in error, Moore, who had previously obtained a judgment against one Samuel M. Dalton, garnisheed the plaintiff in error, Iglehart, upon the usual affidavit. Iglehart answered, stating that Sam.
Read the full summary
Error from Anderson. Tried below before Hon. J. H. Reagan. The defendant in error, Moore, who had previously obtained a judgment against one Samuel M. Dalton, garnisheed the plaintiff in error, Iglehart, upon the usual affidavit. Iglehart answered, stating that Sam. Mills was at the time of the service of the garnishment the holder of a certain note given by Mm, and the amount of which the defendant in error was seeking to subject to his judgment, and prayed that Mills be made a party, in order that the rights of both the claimants might be adjudicated. It further stated, that the note was…
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Ch. J.
The answer of the garnishee discloses in substance, two defences :
1st. That the debt due from him to Dalton, the defendant in execution, was by negotiable note not due, and which in fact was transferred to Sam. Mills before the service of the garnishment.
2d. That Sam. Mills had a claim to the debt, of which the garnishee had notice before the service of the writ; and that Mills should be cited to interplead with the plaintiff, and the garnishee be protected from further litigation, &c.
That the maker of a negotiable note, while current, cannot as a general rule be charged in…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Holloway v. BlumTexas Supreme Court · 1884
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. WhipskerTexas Supreme Court · 1890
- Taylor v. GilleanTexas Supreme Court · 1859
- Rochelle v. Pacific Express Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1909
- Melton v. American Surety Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.