Legal Opinion
Munzenheimer & Klein v. Manhattan Cloak & Suit Co.
Texas Supreme Court
Decided January 23, 1891No. 6747PublishedCited by 9 opinions
Error from Lamar. Tried below before Hon. H. 0. Head.
1Opinion of the Court
STAYTON, Chief Justice.
On September 17,1887, appellee brought this action to recove!' a debt which the petition alleged would become due on January 1, 1888; and to procure writ of attachment affidavit was made to which no objection was made except that it was claimed to be defective because it did not state when the debt would become due.
A motion to quash the attachment on that ground was made, which the court overruled. In this there was no error. Willis v. Mooring, 63 Texas, 340.
It is further urged that the attachment should have been quashed on the ground that the affidavit did not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- P. J. Willis & Bro. v. Mooring & BlanchardTexas Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by9 opinions
- Wasson v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
- B. F. Bridges & Son v. First National Bank of CenterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907
- La Force v. Wear & Boogher Dry Goods Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1894
- McDaniel v. Cage CrowCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
- Robuck v. RasmussenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.