Barkley v. Wood

• Decision Date: 12 June 1897
• Citation: Barkley v. Wood, 41 S.W. 717 (Tex. App. 1897)
• Parties: BARKLEY v. WOOD et al. (BOAZ, Intervener.)
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

41 S.W. 717

BARKLEY v.WOOD et al. (BOAZ, Intervener.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

June 12, 1897.

Appeal from county court, Tarrant county; George W. Armstrong, Judge.

Suit by attachment by L. M. Barkley against J. W. Wood, R. Boazintervener.There was a judgment for plaintiff against defendant, but discharging the attachment, and plaintiff appeals.Rendered as against defendant, and reversed and rendered as against intervener preserving the attachment lien.

F. G. Thurmond, for appellant.John W. Friend and Gillespie, Smith & Render, for appellees.

Reasons for Reversal.

HUNTER, J.

On the 23d day of May, 1896, the appellant filed suit in one of the justices' courts of Ft. Worth against J. W. Wood on an account which was as follows: "May 23, 1896. J. W. Wood to L. M. Barkley, Dr. March 31.To property obtained under false pretenses, $184.87."He at the same time filed an affidavit and bond, and asked for an attachment, which was issued, and the attachment was on that day levied on 60 acres of land in Tarrant county, near Ft. Worth, and the levy duly recorded on that day in the attachment lien record book in the county clerk's office.The affidavit was in proper form, and contained the statement that Wood was justly indebted to Barkley in the sum of $184.87, "and that the same is due for property obtained under false pretenses."On June 22d following this levy, J. W. Wood sold and conveyed by general warranty deed this tract of land to R. Boaz for a consideration of $900 paid in cash.Boaz had no actual knowledge of the levy of the writ of attachment thereon at the time he bought it, but bought and paid for it in good faith, believing he was getting a good title.On September 1, 1896, Boaz filed a written plea of intervention in the justice's court, setting up, in effect, that he was an innocent purchaser of the land levied on for a valuable consideration, without notice of plaintiff's levy, and that at the date of the institution of plaintiff's suit the defendant Wood was not indebted to him, and that the claim sued on was fictitious and fraudulent, and some other immaterial matters.This plea of intervention was stricken out in the justice's court, and judgment was rendered for Barkley for the amount sued for, and preserving his attachment lien on the land as prescribed in article 214 of the Revised Statutes of 1895.From this judgment Boaz appealed to the county court, where he again presented his plea of intervention, and where, by amendment, he in substance prayed that the attachment be quashed, and his land released from the levy.Barkley filed a motion to strike out the plea of intervention upon the ground that the intervener showed no interest in the subject-matter of the suit, which motion the court overruled; and upon the...