Caton v. Jones
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Lamar. Tried below before Hon. W. S. Todd. The appellants commenced suit against C. 0. Jones on a promissory note, and sued out an attachment against his property, which was duly levied on. Wright, one of the appellees, intervened, claiming to hold the property by deed front Jones, as trustee, to pay his debts generally. Appellants moved to strike out this plea, which the Court overruled.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lamar. Tried below before Hon. W. S. Todd. The appellants commenced suit against C. 0. Jones on a promissory note, and sued out an attachment against his property, which was duly levied on. Wright, one of the appellees, intervened, claiming to hold the property by deed front Jones, as trustee, to pay his debts generally. Appellants moved to strike out this plea, which the Court overruled. On the trial, the intervenor introduced in evidence the deed from Jones, but omitted to prove that there were other creditors besides appellants. There was a verdict and judgment for the…
1Opinion of the CourtRoberts, J.
The petition of the trustee for intervention states that there were other creditors of Jones besides Catón & Catón, who had attached the trust property, the proceeds of *789which, Moseley prayed, should be decreed to him to permit him to carry out the trust. On the trial this important fact was not proved. It was important in this case, because the deed of trust did not show who were creditors ; and because Moseley did not avail himself of his legal remedies, (when the attachment was levied, and the property taken out of his hands,) by a direct suit for it, or by taking the oath and giving bond,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- W. H. Kellogg & Co. v. MullerTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- Black v. DruryTexas Supreme Court · 1859