Hollis v. Border
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from San Augustine. The appellee, as surviving partner of the firm of Francois & Border, filed liis petition in the District Court, alleging, among other matters, that in January, 1S45. his firm was indebted by nolo to the firm of Coleman & Simms in the sum of thirty-one hundred dollars; that the latter placed the note in the hands of their attorney for collection ; that the former firm transferred to the latter in payment other notes amounting to thirty-three hundred…
Read the full summary
Appeal from San Augustine. The appellee, as surviving partner of the firm of Francois & Border, filed liis petition in the District Court, alleging, among other matters, that in January, 1S45. his firm was indebted by nolo to the firm of Coleman & Simms in the sum of thirty-one hundred dollars; that the latter placed the note in the hands of their attorney for collection ; that the former firm transferred to the latter in payment other notes amounting to thirty-three hundred dollars; that they afterwards, in February, 1845, paid one thousand dollars upon their note to Coleman & Simms, which…
1Opinion of the CourtIYiieklee, J.
The, exceptions to the answer were, we think, rightly •sustained. After service and pending the injunction the defendants could not legally make payment of the judgment to Coleman & Simms. Such payment •would not release them from ultimate; liability to the plaintiff in casi; lie established his right to have execution of the judgment as between himself and the nominal beneficiaries therein, nor could it in any manner affect the rights sought to be enforced by the plaintiff in this suit. The alleged paj’mont, if mail» by the defendants after notice of the injunction served up'on them, was in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Clyburn v. RoundtreeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929
- Davidson v. GibsonTexas Commission of Appeals · 1885
- Davidson v. GibsonTexas Supreme Court · 1882