Corrigan v. Nichols
Court of Appeals of Texas
The language,as it appears in the affidavit makes no charge whatever against the defendant in attachment. That 1 ‘ the defendant his disposed of his property in part, with intent to defraud his creditors,” is a meaningless collection of words, and to give it meaning one word must be suppressed and others supplied. Bank v. Flippen, 66 Texas, 610.
1Opinion of the Court
STEPHENS, Associate Justice.
The single question presented by this record is, whether there was error in refusing to quash the attachment. The ground reads, “ that the defendant Corrigan his disposed of his property in part, with intent to defraud his creditors.”
We are of opinion that the use of the word “Ms” preceding the word “ disposed” should be ascribed to clerical error, a mere slip of the pen in writing the word has, and that it did not vitiate the attachment. At most it was but an error in spelling, and differs from cases where there has been an entire omission of some important word.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Hanlon v. SmithDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1909
- Freeman v. W. B. Walker & SonsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- T. P. Ry. Co. v. Watson and RichardsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1896
- Jewett State Bank, Inc. v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1939
- Freeman v. W. B. Walker & SonsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.