Harwood v. Blythe
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Wesley Ogden. The facts are briefly but sufficiently stated in the opinion. Taylor, McElroy & Co., the creditors of Kent, who were secured by his deed of trust to Harwood, came in as interveners below.
1Opinion of the CourtMorrill, C. J.
Plaintiff, Harwood, alleges that Kent being indebted to Taylor, McElroy & Co., by note, in the sum of two hundred and five dollars, to secure the payment in part, conveyed to him in trust a certain buggy, of the value of one hundred and seventy-five dollars. That defendant, Blythe, having got possession of the buggy, retains it without ownership, or authority of the owner, against the request and demand .of plaintiff.
The plaintiff, upon the trial, introduced testimony to sustain the material part of the allegations in his petition, and closed. Whereupon, the defendant demurred to plaintiff’s…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chandler v. Von RoederSupreme Court of the United States · 1861
3Cited by6 opinions
- Shives v. Eno Cotton MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Scott v. AtchisonTexas Supreme Court · 1872
- Scott v. AtchisonTexas Supreme Court · 1873
- Pitt v. Texas Storage Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1892
- Hollimon v. GriffinTexas Supreme Court · 1873
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.