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: 216
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
216 MCCLANE V. ROGERS. [Term of
Statement of the case.
charging fraud, and that at the time of the transfer AMcManigle
was insolvent and that Rogers knew of his insolvency.
On the trial it was admitted that McManigle had obtained
judgment against King as alleged in the petition. iMManigle
testified that he had recovered the judgment against King and
immediately thereafter assigned it to Rogers by an assignment
in writing; that at the time witness was owing Rogers some
two thousand dollars; this written assignment was objected to
by Mr. McCampbell who was attorney for witness in the case
v. King, because it made no provision for the payment of his
fee, which amounted to sixty dollars, and witness then made
another assignment which is the one filed in the case; the first
assignment recited, as a consideration, the full amount of the
judgment; the substituted one, three hundred and forty dollars,
so as to allow McCampbell his fees. Witness did not know
that McClarie was notified of this assignment at the June
term of Nueces court; witness, in a conversation with McClane,
told him that he (witness) had assigned the judgment
to Rogers and had no interest in it; that at the time
of the assignment witness did not owe a dollar to any one
On cross-examination witness admitted that he was the same
McManigle against whom the sheriff had unsatisfied executions,
and one of the defendants in the case of Gentry & Son v. Jack
Sands & Co.
Re-examined. Gentry & Son were indebted to witness
three dollars and forty cents. They had a judgment against
Jack Sands & Co., but witness was not a member of the firm
of Sands & Co., against whom the judgment was rendered;
that lie was not in debt and had plenty of property.
The assignment of the judgment was then read, and Rogers,
plaintiff, testified that immediately after the rendition of the
judgment of McManigle v. King, witness bought it, paid valuable
consideration for it, that is, McM. was owing witness.
The written assignment read in evidence (bearing date March
26, 1872), was read to McClane directly after it was made.
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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/m1/224/: accessed May 27, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .