Fairchild v. Davis
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
WILLSON, O. J.
(after stating the facts as above). The trial court found (in effect) that Henry Teague was insolvent at the time he executed the instrument (set out above) purporting to be a transfer to his wife of an interest in the judgment he obtained against appellee Davis. That being true, by force of article 3967, Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, the transfer was void as'to appellant if it was not upon consideration deemed valuable in law; and by force of article 3966 of said statutes it was void if it was upon such a consideration, if made by Teague with intent to delay, hinder, or…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Arnold v. LeonardTexas Supreme Court · 1925
- Gohlman, Lester & Co. v. WhittleTexas Supreme Court · 1925
- Seinsheimer v. FlanaganCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1897
- Southern Pac. Co. v. UlmerTexas Commission of Appeals · 1926
- Medley v. American Radiator Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1901
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Teague v. FairchildTexas Commission of Appeals · 1929
- Johnson v. Daniel Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1952
- Wichita Falls Traction Co. v. McAbeeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929
- Johnson v. Daniel Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1952