Legal Opinion

Curtis v. Henrietta National Bank

Texas Supreme Court

Decided October 24, 1890No. 2632PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from Clay. Tried below before Hon. P. M. Stine.

1Opinion of the Court

GAINES, Associate Justice.

This was a proceeding in garnishment ancillary to the suit of the present appellant to recover of one R P. Wells an alleged indebtedness. The appellee, who was the garnishee, made a motion to quash the writ of garnishment upon the ground that it did not show upon its face the amount claimed by the plaintiff to be due from the defendant Wells, and upon the further ground that the affidavit and bond were not in compliance with the statute. The court sustained the motion and dismissed the writ, and that ruling is assigned as error.'

The affidavit and bond are regular.…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Cawthon v. First State Bank of SaladoCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917
  2. First Nat. Bank of Stephenville v. McClellanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
  3. Equipment Co. of Texas v. Stockyards Nat. Bank of Fort WorthCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
  4. Foster v. MotleySupreme Court of Kansas · 1923

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API