Walcott v. Hendrick
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Cass. The appellant brought suit for six hundred and fifty-one dollars ninety-one cents on account, and interest, thereon, and, on affidavit in the usual form that tlie defendant secreted himself so that the ordinary process of law could not bo served upon him, he prayed and obtained a writ of attachment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cass. The appellant brought suit for six hundred and fifty-one dollars ninety-one cents on account, and interest, thereon, and, on affidavit in the usual form that tlie defendant secreted himself so that the ordinary process of law could not bo served upon him, he prayed and obtained a writ of attachment. The bond followed the statutory form, except that it was conditioned to pay such damages as should be adjudged against him for “unlawfully” instead of “wrongfully” suing out tlie writ. The defendant at tlie return term moved to quash tlie attachment on the ground that there was…
1Opinion of the Court
HemphiIjIi, Oh. J.
Tiie first question presented on the assignment is whether I lie motion to reject tiie plea in reeonvention should have been sustained. Tiie inquiry is one of no little difficulty, and, from the want of authorities in onr former system of jurisprudence, cannot he thoroughly investigated.
Tiie act of 1849, (Dig., p. 222.) allowing discounts and set-offs, attempts to confer and regulate tiie right of the defendant when sued for a debt clue by judgment, bond, bill, or otherwise, “to make all the discounts he can against such debts.” The second section requires tiie defendant to…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Duncan v. MagetteTexas Supreme Court · 1860
- J. H. Milliken & Co. v. Callahan CountyTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- Briggs v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1951
- Harris v. FinbergTexas Supreme Court · 1876
- Scale v. TompkinsTexas Supreme Court · 1884
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.