Peticolas v. Carpenter
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Victoria. Tried below before the Hon. H. Clay Pleasants. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Gould, Associate Justice.
In 1876 Peticolas sued Carpenter on a promissory note, and sequestered a stock of goods on which he held a chattel mortgage to secure Ms note. Subsequently, A. Peiser & Co. and Ralph Levy, having each obtained judgments in a Justice’s Court against Carpenter, caused their executions to be levied on the same goods, and intervened in the suit of Peticolas v. Carpenter, denying the validity of the mortgage and asking the satisfaction of their judgments by the enforcement of the lien arising from the levy of their executions. The District Court, however, by judgment…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- The BANK OF THE UNITED STATES v. the Bank of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Reynolds v. HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Cummings v. NoyesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- A. Peiser & Co. v. PeticolasTexas Supreme Court · 1879
- Field v. MagheeNew York Court of Chancery · 1836
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Cleveland v. TuftsTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- Drake v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1980
- Currie v. DrakeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1977
- Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. BBE, L.L.C., Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)2003
- Coker & Bellamy v. RicheyOregon Supreme Court · 1923
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.