Legal Opinion

Big Three Welding Equipment Co. v. Crutcher, Rolfs, Cummings, Inc.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1950No. A-2499PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Smedley

*207The controversies herein are as to priorities of liens and consequently as to priorities of payment out of a fund deposited with the clerk of the district court by Humble Pipe Line Company as stakeholder. On trial without a jury the district court adjudged that the petitioner, Big Three Welding Equipment Company, Inc., which perfected a garnishment lien, is entitled to priority over all other parties to the suit; that the United States of America, having perfected a lien for taxes, is entitled to priority of payment over all other parties except Big Three Welding Equipment Company, Inc.; and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Lippencott v. YorkTexas Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Hess v. Denman Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1920
  3. Arthur Morgan Trucking Co. v. ShartzerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1943
  4. Bon Marche Realty Co. v. Southern Surety Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Brace v. RashawSupreme Court of Vermont · 1946

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Houston Pipe Line Company v. DwyerTexas Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Dean v. McFarlandWashington Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Stanford v. State Department of Highways & Public TransportationCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1982
  4. The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Lucey Products CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
  5. Orix Capital Markets, L.L.C. v. Washington Mutual Bank, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2008

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API