13 S.W. 181 (Tex. 1890), Hart v. Blum

Citation:13 S.W. 181, 76 Tex. 113
Opinion Judge:HOBBY, J. STAYTON, C.J.
Party Name:HART et al. v. BLUM.
Attorney:Wm. B. Lockhart, for appellants. [76 Tex. 114] Labatt & Noble, for appellee.
Case Date:February 04, 1890
Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Page 181

13 S.W. 181 (Tex. 1890)

76 Tex. 113

HART et al.



Supreme Court of Texas

February 4, 1890

Commissioners' decision. Appeal from district court, Galveston county; WILLIAM H. STEWART, Judge.

Wm. B. Lockhart, for appellants.

[76 Tex. 114] Labatt & Noble, for appellee.


It appears from the record in this case that on the 10th day of October, 1887, W. L. Austin, of the firm of Austin & Fisher, executed to the appellee, A. Blum, an instrument in writing conveying to said Blum a stock of goods, wares, and merchandise, which constituted the drug and medicine store of said Austin, in the city of Galveston. The consideration recited in this instrument was an indebtedness due Blum of about $1,650. It conveyed the property to appellee, first to pay himself the said sum of $1,650, and all necessary expenses, etc., incurred in converting the stock, etc., into cash; the surplus, after the payments, to be divided pro rata between several named creditors, among them the appellants; 'to whom,' the conveyance also recited, 'I am indebted in various sums of money upon their several indebtedness against the late firm of Austin & Fisher, of which I was a copartner, and for which indebtedness I am liable, and assumed the payment thereof.' [76 Tex. 115] Appellants, to whom the firm of Austin & Fisher were indebted for goods sold in the sum of $1,146.54, sued out a writ of attachment from the district court of Galveston county, caused the same to be levied on the property so conveyed to Blum, which was by order of the court sold. The appellee, Blum, became the purchaser for the sum of $790. This suit, after said seizure and sale, was brought by the appellee, Blum, against Hart & Co. and the sheriff and his sureties, for the value of the goods so seized and sold. The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury on November 22, 1888, and judgment was rendered in favor of the appellee, Blum, for the sum of $1,523.19, the value of the goods so attached, against the appellants, said sheriff and his sureties.

There are several assignments of error discussed at length in appellants' brief, but the view we take of the case will dispense with the necessity for considering each error assigned; and we will confine ourselves to the questions we believe to be decisive of the rights of the parties. These involve-- First, the construction of the instrument under

Page 182

which the appellee, Blum, claims title to the property conveyed to him by Austin; and, second, whether, under the facts of this case, he can recover from the appellants the value of the goods attached by them. It is claimed, under the assignment first presented, that the court erred in admitting in evidence the instrument of October 10, 1887, conveying the property to...

To continue reading