Pinson v. Kirsh
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Anderson. Tried below before the Hon. M. D. Ector. July 11, 1874, Thomas E. Eirsh, as administrator of William M. Mathews, sued A. L. Pinson on several notes described in the petition. Citation issued and was served. Defendant, July 29,1874, answered by demurrer and general denial.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Anderson. Tried below before the Hon. M. D. Ector. July 11, 1874, Thomas E. Eirsh, as administrator of William M. Mathews, sued A. L. Pinson on several notes described in the petition. Citation issued and was served. Defendant, July 29,1874, answered by demurrer and general denial. April 24,1875, Kirsh made affidavit for attachment, “that Pinson is about to remove his property beyond the county of Anderson, and that plaintiff will thereby probably lose his debt,” with the other statutory allegations, which affidavit was written upon the original petition, and bore no other file…
1Opinion of the Court
Moore, Associate Justice.
The alleged errors, calling in question the validity of the attachment, because the affidavit on which it issued, was written with permission of the court, upon the original petition after the defendant had appeared and answered; that the affidavit was not marked by the clerk “filed;” that the petition was not refiled after said affidavit was made, and on account of the difference of the filing of the petition and the bond for attachment, are frivolous, .and unworthy of serious consideration. Counsel must surely have suffered his zeal fqr his client to obscure his…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Plumb v. WoodmanseeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pacific Express Co. v. MalinSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- R. B. Whitemore & Co. v. WilsonTexas Commission of Appeals · 1880
- Fechheimer, Frenkel & Co. v. J. M. Ball & Bro.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1881
- Schmidt & Zeigler v. John G. Rost & Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1878