Crutcher, Rolfs, Cummings, Inc. v. Big Three Welding Equipment Co.
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
CODY, Justice.
The principal question for determination on this appeal is that of priority of the *886liens claimed by the parties to this appeal as securing their claims against the fund of $21,880.39, which was the amount of the sum which remained unpaid by the Humble Pipe Line Company upon its debt to Lade-wig Engineering Co., at the time a writ of garnishment was served upon said pipe line company at the behest of the Big Three Welding Equipment Co., Inc. The date of the service of said writ of garnishment was October 29, 1947.
There is no contention here made that there was any irregularity of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Illinois Ex Rel. Gordon v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Thomas Trammell & Co. v. MountTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- Ball v. DavisTexas Supreme Court · 1929
- United States v. YatesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1947
- Oil Field Salvage Co. v. SimonTexas Supreme Court · 1943
3Cited by7 opinions
- The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Lucey Products CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
- In the Matter Of: Waterpoint International Llc, Debtor. Exchanger Contractors Inc. v. Comerica Bank-Texas Waterpoint International LLC Robbye Waldron, Chapter 7 TrusteeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003
- Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Union Bank of California, N.A. (In Re Cornerstone E & P Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · 2010
- Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Union Bank of California, N.A. (In Re Cornerstone E & P Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · 2010
- Meg Petroleum Corp. v. Halliburton Services (In Re Meg Petroleum Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.