Nave v. Britton
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Grayson. Tried below before the Hon. Richard Maltbie. Keep & Yates assigned to appellee for the benefit of their creditors. Have, Goddard & Co. instituted suit against them and attached a part of the assigned goods.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Grayson. Tried below before the Hon. Richard Maltbie. Keep & Yates assigned to appellee for the benefit of their creditors. Have, Goddard & Co. instituted suit against them and attached a part of the assigned goods. Appellee instituted suit in district court of Grayson county against Have, Goddard & Co., "W. C. Everheart,' sheriff, and G. H. Montgomery, C. W. Batsell, V. H. Montgomery, E. Everheart and E. L. Manson, his sureties, for damages for levying the attachment on the assigned property, claiming under the deed of assignment from Keep & Yates. Everheart filed his answer and…
1Opinion of the Court
Willie, Chief Justice.—
Unless the assignment was void upon its face, there was of course no error in permitting it to go to the ]ury. *574It is contended by the appellants that it is void for containing neither a full statement of the property conveyed nor of the claims to be paid by the assignee.
The instrument conveys all the property of every character owned by the firm making the assignment. This has always been held a sufficient description, and is as definite as an absolute owner is required to make in an ordinary deed to his property. It is only necessary that the description given should…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Halsey v. FairbanksU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1826
- Baldwin v. Peet, Sims & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1859
- Earle v. ThomasTexas Supreme Court · 1855
- Galveston, H. & S. A. R. R. Co. v. DelahuntyTexas Supreme Court · 1880
- Van Hook v. WaltonTexas Supreme Court · 1866
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- W. H. Kellogg & Co. v. MullerTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- Graham Paper Co. v. SandersonColorado Court of Appeals · 1896
- Graham Paper Co. v. SandersonColorado Court of Appeals · 1896