Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the Austin term, 1885, and the early portion of the Tyler term, 1885. Volume 64. Page: 59
xxiii, 825 p., 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1885.] BEARD V. BLUM. 59
Syllabus.
nership property. Tex. & St. L. R'y Co. v. McCaughey, 4 Tex. L.
R., 293; Alexander v. Stern, 41 Tex., 193.
In the first of these cases the issuance and service of citation was
waived by one partner after the dissolution of the firm, and it was
held sufficient under art. 1224, Revised Statutes. The same effect
must be given to the entry of an appearance and the filing of a plea
to the action by one member of the firm. It must be held to bring
the firm into court for the purposes of adjudication so far as the
common property of the partnership is concerned. That was sufficient
for the purposes of the attachment, it having been levied on
partnership assets alone. As the individual assets of O'Neil could
not be reached under a judgment rendered upon service on Overmier
alone, his plea in abatement became useless after Overmier's
answer was filed. The verdict of the jury upon that plea could not
find, neither could the court adjudge upon their verdict, that it had
no jurisdiction to preserve the attachment, and render a judgment
binding upon the partnership property.
We are of opinion that the court had jurisdiction, by reason of
Overmier's answer, to foreclose the plaintiffs' attachment, and to
render any other judgment in the cause affecting only the firm
estate of Overmier & O'Neil, and that the court erred in its judgment
as recited, for which error the judgment must be reversed and
the cause remanded.
Under this view of the case it is unnecessary to pass upon any of
the other questions raised by the record.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
'Opinion delivered April 24, 1885.]
W. T. BEARD V. HYMAN BLULM
(Case No. 5337.)
1. HOMESTEAD--EQUITY.-One embarrassed by debt conveyed by deed his
homestead on a secret trust that it should be reconveyed, and continued to
occupy it as a homestead, until after it was sold under execution against
the vendor on a judgment rendered after the deed was made and under
which appellee, the execution purchaser, claimed. The judgment was rendered
on a debt contracted after the execution of the deed. When the
deed was made, the ostensible purchaser, who was to hold the property in
trust to reconvey it, executed to the vendor his promissory notes, which
were to be surrendered on a reconveyance, but which were after maturity
transferred by such vendor to the appellant. These notes were by appellant
.afterwards surrendered to the secret trustee in consideration of a deed to
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the Austin term, 1885, and the early portion of the Tyler term, 1885. Volume 64., book, 1886; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28510/m1/83/: accessed May 6, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .