Harrison v. Harwood
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Gonzales. The case was tried before Hon. J. J. Holt, one of the district judges. The petition set out the note and the credits, and stated the balance due; averred that the defendant was about to fraudulently transfer his property; that the attachment was not prayed for to injure the defendant, &e.
Read the full summary
Error from Gonzales. The case was tried before Hon. J. J. Holt, one of the district judges. The petition set out the note and the credits, and stated the balance due; averred that the defendant was about to fraudulently transfer his property; that the attachment was not prayed for to injure the defendant, &e. The petition was verified under the 138th section of the act to regulate proceedings in the district court, (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 138,) and the attachment oath (Art. 142) was substantially superadded. The oath was made before the deputy clerk of the district court. The principal contest…
1Opinion of the CourtLindsay, J.
—This was a suit by attachment, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, founded upon a promissory note. The ground of the attachment was that the plaintiff in error was about to transfer his property for the purpose of defrauding his creditors. The defense was a plea in reconvention, alleging that the attachment was maliciously sued out for the purpose of injuring and harassing the defendant. 'Other creditors of the defendant intervened in the cause, and claimed a share in the proceeds of the property levied upon by the attachment, upon the ground that the defendant…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State v. StoneCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1954
- Dewitt v. Oppenheimer & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1879
- Jones v. MacCorquodaleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
- Mason v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1890
- Meredith v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.