Legal Opinion

Ratto, Lang & Weinberger v. Bluestein

Texas Supreme Court

Decided March 18, 1892No. 3369PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Ho statement is necessary.

1Opinion of the Court

GATHER, Associate Justice.

— Appellee brought this suit to recover the value of certain goods which were seized under a writ of attachment in favor of appellants against one Fani. He claimed the goods by virtue of a sale made to him by Fani before the levy of the writ. The appellants defended upon the ground that the sale was fraudulent as to Fani’s creditors.

The substance of the charge given to the jury by the court of its own motion is correctly stated in appellant’s brief, and is as follows: “The ■charge given instructed the jury to find for the plaintiff, unless they believed from the…

2Cited by13 opinions

  1. City of Dallas v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1903
  2. Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. TravisTexas Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. TravisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
  4. Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railroad v. OlmsteadCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1909
  5. Brady v. Georgia Home InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1900

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API