Legal Opinion

Hinzie v. W. L. Moody & Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 12, 1896PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GARRETT, Chief Justice.

— This was a proceeding by garnishment after judgment, begun by the appellees, W. L. Moody & Co., against Akin & Broyles, tenants of Martin Hinzie, the appellant, who intervened in the suit, to subject to their judgment the rents of a building in the city of Palestine claimed by Hinzie as his business homestead.

Prior to first day of January, 1888, the appellant was a married man, the head of a family, and owned and resided with his wife and children upon a lot in the city of Palestine as his homestead. His wife died on the date mentioned, and he has since continued to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wynne v. HudsonTexas Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Hargadene, McKittrick & Co. v. WhitfieldTexas Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Coates v. CaldwellTexas Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Silberberg v. TrillingTexas Supreme Court · 1891
  5. P. Pfeiffer & Co. v. McNatt & MarchTexas Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Sargeant v. SargeantTexas Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Sargeant v. SargeantCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928
  3. Hughes v. Team Bank (In Re Hughes)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · 1993
  4. In re CrumpUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · 2015
  5. In re PresnallDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 1909

6 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