Legal Opinion

Galloway v. Marietta State Bank

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided January 26, 1924No. 2807. [fn*]PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLevy, J.

(after stating the facts as above). By this action the defendant in error seeks to perpetually enjoin the enforcement of a judgment rendered against it, after legal summons upon it, by a court of competent jurisdiction. No facts are alleged or shown as grounds for enjoining the judgment, other than that the principal debtor, T. Jake Brock, was insolvent at the time the writ of garnishment was served upon the bank, and three days previous to the rendition of the judgment the principal debtor had been adjudicated a bankrupt. It appears that the bank answered the writ of garnishment to the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. WareTexas Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Turner v. PattersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1909
  3. Coppard v. GardnerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. S. Chester Tube v. Texhoma Oil Ref.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1924
  2. South Chester Tube Co. v. Texhoma Oil & Refining Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API