Alamo Ice Co. v. Yancey
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Geo. H. Uoonan. Appellees, Yancy & Foster, instituted this action in the district court of Bexar county, October 30, 1884, against Crosby So Co., to recover the sum of $1,075.06, and caused writs of garnishment to be issued and served upon appellant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Geo. H. Uoonan. Appellees, Yancy & Foster, instituted this action in the district court of Bexar county, October 30, 1884, against Crosby So Co., to recover the sum of $1,075.06, and caused writs of garnishment to be issued and served upon appellant. Appellant filed an amended original answer as garnishee, December 31, 1884, admitting an indebtedness to Crosby & Co. of $409.60. On September 10, 1885, Lauriston White filed a petition for intervention, claiming that the indebtedness of appellant was due him and not Crosby & Co. That the amount…
1Opinion of the Court
Willie, Chief Justice.
The answer of the appellant to the writ of garnishment showed an indebtedness to the defendants Crosby & Co. Had no other party intervened in the suit, this answer would have entitled the plaintiffs to the judgment against the appellant. Lauriston White did intervene and set up a claim to the money admitted by the appellant to be due to the defendant in the suit.
Had the cause proceeded with all these parties before the court, an adjudication might have been had as to which was the creditor of the appellant, Crosby & Co., or the intervenor. The appellant would then have…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Royal Neighbors of America v. FletcherCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Wall v. WallCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1944
- Ash v. AkinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1893
- Western Nat. Bank of Ft. Worth v. Texas Christian UniversityCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Canfield v. WrightCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.