Flynn & McSpadden v. Lynch

1 White & W. 432
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 12, 1881
DocketNo. 1096, Op. Book No. 2, p. 377
StatusPublished

This text of 1 White & W. 432 (Flynn & McSpadden v. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Flynn & McSpadden v. Lynch, 1 White & W. 432 (Tex. Ct. App. 1881).

Opinion

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 787. Sequestration bond; must be in an amount at least double the value of the property; replevy bond not valid unless sequestration bond is. Lynch sued Flynn & McSpadden for property valued at $135. He obtained a sequestration upon giving a bond in the sum of $200. The [433]*433writ was levied upon the property, and Flynn & McSpadden replevied by giving bond in the sum of $270. On appeal from justice’s to county court, the latter court refused to quash the sequestration proceedings, and rendered judgment against Flynn & McSpadden and the sureties upon their replevy bond for the value of th e property and the hire thereof. Held, the sequestration bond was not in compliance with the law, and should have been quashed. The law requires that such bond “ shall be for a sum of money not less than double the value of the property to be sequestered.” [R. S. 4192.] The sequestration bond being invalid, all proceedings occasioned by, incident to, or growing out .of it, were, void, and it was error, therefore, to render judgment against the sureties upon the replevy bond; and the sureties having appealed in this case are entitled to have the judgment as against them set aside. [Chatham v. Riddle, 8 Tex. 162.]

March 12, 1881.

§'788. Hire; of wagon and team; excessive estimate of. The property sued for and sequestrated was a mule and a wagon. The hire of the same was estimated on the trial in the court at $1 per day for the mule, and fifty cents per day for the wagon, for four hundred and sixty-three days. Held, that the proper mode of estimating the hire of the mule and wagon was not by the day. Such an estimate is not a reasonable one for the length of time for which the jury were called upon to assess hire. [Hutson v. Wilkinson, 45 Tex. 444.]

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cheatham v. Riddle
8 Tex. 162 (Texas Supreme Court, 1852)
Hudson v. Wilkinson
45 Tex. 444 (Texas Supreme Court, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 White & W. 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flynn-mcspadden-v-lynch-texapp-1881.