Cook v. Pollard
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Lamar. Tried below before the Hon. D. H. Scott. Suit by attachment, begun by appellant, whose claim was attacked for fraud by Simon & Morse and Max Judd & Company, interveners, and subsequent attaching creditors.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lamar. Tried below before the Hon. D. H. Scott. Suit by attachment, begun by appellant, whose claim was attacked for fraud by Simon & Morse and Max Judd & Company, interveners, and subsequent attaching creditors. By order of the trial judge, and upon application of appellant, the goods were, on the twentieth day of January, 1885, sold by the sheriff of the county as perishable property, and brought the sum of six thousand five hundred dollars, which sum, less four hundred and forty-eight dollars, the amount of liis costs and expenses, the sheriff paid into the hands of the clerk…
1Opinion of the Court
Collard, Judge.
The intervention of appellees Simon & Morse, and Max Judd & Company in the attachment suit of appellant Cook against O. H. Pollard, was to have set aside and canceled the note sued on by Cook as a fraudulent and fiqticious claim, and to have the proceeds of the goods levied on by Cook applied to the claims of other attaching creditors according to the priority of their attachment liens. Intervenors sued in their own names for the benefit of such subsequent attaching creditors without making them parties. The court rendered judgment for intervenors, declaring Cook’s note…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hall v. HarrisTexas Supreme Court · 1854
- Nix & Storey v. DukesTexas Supreme Court · 1882
3Cited by19 opinions
- Veal v. ThomasonTexas Supreme Court · 1942
- Needham v. CooneyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Barmore v. DarraghCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Royal Petroleum Corporation v. DennisTexas Supreme Court · 1960
- Belt v. Texas Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1943
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.