Primrose v. Roden
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Galveston. The appellant commenced suit against appellee by attachment issued before his demand became due as provided for by statute, (Hart. Dig.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Galveston. The appellant commenced suit against appellee by attachment issued before his demand became due as provided for by statute, (Hart. Dig. Art. 37.) The petition was not sworn to, but there was an affidavit as follows : “ On this 28th day of March, A. D., 1853, personally ap- “ peared before me Mordicai Primrose, the above named plain- “ tiff in the petition hereto annexed, and being duly sworn, de- “ poses and says that William B. Roden, the defendant in “ the annexed petition named, is justly indebted to him, said “plaintiff in the sum of nine hundred and fifty dollars…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The affidavit, made to obtain the attachment, is in strict conformity to the statute, (Hart. Dig. Art. 25,) but it is insisted that the plaintiff should have made affidavit to the truth of the matter set forth in his petition, as prescribed in Art. 795 of the Digest. In the case of Schrimpf v. McArdle (13 Tex. R. 368) we intimated the opinion that the Act regulating attachments did not expressly, nor by necessary implication, repeal the provision of the statute last cited ; but that an affidavit of the truth of the material, substantive matter set forth *3in the petition would be a virtual…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Tarkinton v. C. E. Broussard & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1879
- Lewis & Baker v. StewartTexas Supreme Court · 1884
- R. B. Whitemore & Co. v. WilsonTexas Commission of Appeals · 1880
- Pryor v. City of WalkervilleMontana Supreme Court · 1905
- Osvald v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.