Frieberg, Klein & Co. v. Elliott & Wright
Texas Supreme Court
Ebeob from Comanche. Tried below before the Hon. W. A. ■ Blackburn. Defendants in error, who were plaintiffs in the court below, sued to recover the value of certain property alleged to have been levied on by plaintiffs in error under a writ of attachment sued out by them against Fernandez & Ackerman.
Read the full summary
Ebeob from Comanche. Tried below before the Hon. W. A. ■ Blackburn. Defendants in error, who were plaintiffs in the court below, sued to recover the value of certain property alleged to have been levied on by plaintiffs in error under a writ of attachment sued out by them against Fernandez & Ackerman. In addition to general defense, plaintiffs in error alleged that the property levied on was the property of Fernandez & Ackerman, and was liable to such levy for the debt by them due to Frieberg, Klein & Co., and that whatever title defendants in error had to such property was derived through…
1Opinion of the Court
Walker, P. J. Com. App.
We are of opinion that the court erred in that portion of the charge that is complained of under the fourth ground assigned as error.
The charge is predicated on the idea that the property, when it was levied on under the defendants’ attachment, was not subject to levy because it was in the custody of the law. The plaintiffs had the property in their possession when the- defendants’ attachment was levied on it by virtue of the oath and statutory bond which they had regularly filed in the proceeding to try the right of property as against the attachment suit of J.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Stansell v. FlemingTexas Supreme Court · 1891
- Vogt v. DorseyTexas Supreme Court · 1892
- United States Carriage Co. v. Bay City Buggy WorksCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1895
- Brown Manufacturing Co. v. WatsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1887
- McCreary v. Waco Lodge No. 70Texas Commission of Appeals · 1879