Portis v. Parker
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Austin. This was a motion to quash the levy and return on an execution. The grounds of the motion were— 1st. That the execution was not styled according to law. 2d. That no valid levy was made by taking possession of the property. Tlie execution commenced, “ Ti-ie State oe Texas, \ To the sheriff of ¿aid comity, County of Austin. J Greeting&c.
Read the full summary
Error from Austin. This was a motion to quash the levy and return on an execution. The grounds of the motion were— 1st. That the execution was not styled according to law. 2d. That no valid levy was made by taking possession of the property. Tlie execution commenced, “ Ti-ie State oe Texas, \ To the sheriff of ¿aid comity, County of Austin. J Greeting&c. Tlie return of the sheriff -was to the effect that he had levied upon four hundred and fifty head of cattle, more or less, as they ran, branded in part with a gudgeon and in part 11. C., and known as the Portis and Cummins’stock, and also…
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Oh. J.
The objection to this return is that it nowhere shows an actual seizure of tlie property or the performance of any suohact by way of asserting title as would have subjected the sheriff to an action for the trespass were lie not protected by the process. In tlie case of Ilasbrook & Bryan v. Tlie Bridges, we held at tlie last term that an actual possession of personal property was essential to tlie validity of the levy, and that the act of taking possession must be of such character as would make the officer, if not protected by the process, liable for the trespass. The mode in…
2Cited by13 opinions
- State ex rel. McPherson v. BecknerIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
- Southern Surety Co. v. AdamsTexas Supreme Court · 1930
- Miller v. ClementsTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- Smith v. PackardCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1900
- Beaurline v. Sinclair Refining Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1945
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.