Merchants National Bank v. Barker
Court of Appeals of Texas
Error from Wilbarger. Tried below before Hon. G. A. Brown. 1. The allegation of ownership and possession and right of possession to the property, made in plaintiff’s petition, was supported by proof that the property was turned over to the plaintiff by Robinson Bros. & Co. to be sold, and the proceeds arising from said sale to be applied on an indebtedness due from said Robinson Bros. & Co. to the plaintiff; and it was error to instruct the jury, that before plaintiff could…
Read the full summary
Error from Wilbarger. Tried below before Hon. G. A. Brown. 1. The allegation of ownership and possession and right of possession to the property, made in plaintiff’s petition, was supported by proof that the property was turned over to the plaintiff by Robinson Bros. & Co. to be sold, and the proceeds arising from said sale to be applied on an indebtedness due from said Robinson Bros. & Co. to the plaintiff; and it was error to instruct the jury, that before plaintiff could recover it must show an absolute title and ownership to the property in question. Schmick v. Bateman, 77 Texas, 326;…
1Opinion of the Court
STEPHENS, Associate Justice.
Plaintiff bank sued the sheriff of Wilbarger County for the value of a lot of barbed wire seized by him under attachment process in favor of the Tebo Mill and Elevator Company, as the property of Robinson Bros. & Co., alleging, in general terms, that at and before the date of the seizure said bank was the owner, in possession and entitled to the possession, of said wire.
Delivered October 24, 1894.
•The proof tended to show, that Eobinson Bros. & Co., being largely indebted to said bank, had conveyed their stock of goods to it for the purpose of securing and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- P. J. Willis & Bro. v. HudsonTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- Osborn v. KoenigheimTexas Supreme Court · 1882
- Hudson v. WilkinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1882
- Schmick v. BatemanTexas Supreme Court · 1890
- Houston v. StarrTexas Supreme Court · 1854