Ingram v. Brown McFarland

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ingram v. Brown McFarland

173 S.W. 524, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 1561

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 23, 1914

DocketNo. 1382.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 173 S.W. 524 (Ingram v. Brown McFarland) 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

Ingram v. Brown McFarland, 173 S.W. 524, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 1561 (Tex. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

WILUSON, C. J.

This was a suit by appel-lees against appellant, to recover a sum claimed to be due on promissory notes, and to foreclose mortgages on certain personal property, made to secure the payment of the notes. A writ of sequestration, issued at the instance of appellees, having been levied upon property covered by the mortgages, appellant replevied same, as authorized by the statute (article 7103, Vernon’s Sayles’ Statutes). The appeal is from a judgment in appellees’ favor against appellant for $214.30, interest and costs, apd foreclosing the lien of the mortgages on the property, and in appellees’ favor against appellant and the sureties on his replevy bond for a like sum, interest and costs.

It is not believed the judgment should be reversed and a new trial awarded for any of the reasons suggested in the assignments; but as the judgment is erroneous, in that it (1) awards a double recovery against appellant of the sum found by the court to be due by him to appellees, and (2) awards a recovery of the costs of the suit against the sureties on the replevy bond, and does not provide, as it should, that a delivery to and acceptance by the sheriff of the property replevied, as provided by law (Vernon’s Sayles’ Statutes, art. 7107), should operate as a satisfaction of the judgment so far as it is against the sureties on the replevy bond, it will be reformed in those respects; and, as so reformed, it' will be affirmed.

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

WILUSON, C. J.

This was a suit by appel-lees against appellant, to recover a sum claimed to be due on promissory notes, and to foreclose mortgages on certain personal property, made to secure the payment of the notes. A writ of sequestration, issued at the instance of appellees, having been levied upon property covered by the mortgages, appellant replevied same, as authorized by the statute (article 7103, Vernon’s Sayles’ Statutes). The appeal is from a judgment in appellees’ favor against appellant for $214.30, interest and costs, apd foreclosing the lien of the mortgages on the property, and in appellees’ favor against appellant and the sureties on his replevy bond for a like sum, interest and costs.

It is not believed the judgment should be reversed and a new trial awarded for any of the reasons suggested in the assignments; but as the judgment is erroneous, in that it (1) awards a double recovery against appellant of the sum found by the court to be due by him to appellees, and (2) awards a recovery of the costs of the suit against the sureties on the replevy bond, and does not provide, as it should, that a delivery to and acceptance by the sheriff of the property replevied, as provided by law (Vernon’s Sayles’ Statutes, art. 7107), should operate as a satisfaction of the judgment so far as it is against the sureties on the replevy bond, it will be reformed in those respects; and, as so reformed, it' will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 S.W. 524, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 1561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingram-v-brown-mcfarland-texapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack