Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 160
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
160 ARTHUR v. BATTE. [Tyler Term,
Opinion of the court.
debtedness to Batte, but setting up also the fact that suit
had been brought against him by Batte on his demand, on
November 26, 1869, and that said suit was still pending in
the District Court of Maarion county.
The rendition of judgment in favor of Batte against
Hughes, on the 19th of May, 1871; that Batte had no other
property or effects save said ju(lgment out of which plaintiff's
demand against him could be made; and that by allowing
the sheriff to proceed to collect from Hughes and
pay over to Btte t he said judgment, plaintiff would lose
the benefit of his writ of garnishment, are the other averments
of the petition. The prayer was that said Batte and
sheriff be enjoined from further proceedings under said
order of sale "until the said answer of said Hughes be
considered by said United States Circuit Court, and that if,
upon hearing said answer, it shall be adjudged that said
garnishee is liable to your petitioner by reason of his said
indebtedness, that said injunction be made perpetual.
The injunction was dissolved, and the petition dismissed
on motion of defendant, in which motion one E. W. Taylor,
who had been allowed to intervene, claiming to have
bought the judgment from Batte shortly after it was rendered,
The main. question in the case is, did the petition state
facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to an injunction. It is
to be observed that the relief was claimed on account of
and in assistance of the proceedings in garnishment.
There were no allegations of fraud, or of other matters
than those stated above. The garnishment was sued out
long after suit had been brought against the garnishee in
the District Court of Marion county. That court having
first obtained jurisdiction, its right to proceed to judgment
and execution could not be affected by subsequent garnishment
proceedings in a different court. (Drake on Attachments,
sec. 621; Wallace v. McConnell, 13 Peters, 151.)
But at all events, whatever right the plaintiffs acquired by
Here’s what’s next.
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 Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/168/: accessed July 27, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .