Cleveland v. Battle
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Wharton. Tried below before the Hon. W illiam H. Burkhart. • The conclusions of fact found by the district judge are sufficiently referred to in the opinion. The conclusions of law filed by him were as follows: “First. That the assignment of Page and Gregory has not the effect to stop these creditors in proceeding against W. D.. Gregory for any amount due them, as he (W. D. G.) is not a party to the assignment, nor is he relieved thereby. “ Second.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Wharton. Tried below before the Hon. W illiam H. Burkhart. • The conclusions of fact found by the district judge are sufficiently referred to in the opinion. The conclusions of law filed by him were as follows: “First. That the assignment of Page and Gregory has not the effect to stop these creditors in proceeding against W. D.. Gregory for any amount due them, as he (W. D. G.) is not a party to the assignment, nor is he relieved thereby. “ Second. That it matters not what may have been the fraud or fraudulent purposes of W. D. Gregory and F. E. Gregory, or either of them, the…
1Opinion of the Court
Willie, Chief Justice.
The appellee sued Cleveland to recover the value of certain goods alleged to have been in possession of appellee as assignee of Frank Page and F. E. Gregory, and attached and converted by Cleveland to satisfy a debt due him by said Page and Gregory.
Appellant pleaded that the assignment under which the appellee claimed was fraudulent and of no effect to vest title to the goods in the latter as against the appellant, and that the goods were subject to the levy made upon them to satisfy the appellant’s debt. »
The judge to whom the cause was submitted rendered judgment in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Still v. WilkensTexas Supreme Court · 1886
- Donoho v. Fish Bros. & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1882
3Cited by3 opinions
- Parsons v. City of Fort WorthCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1901
- Taylor v. Missouri Glass Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1894
- Wetzel v. L. Simon & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1894