Christian v. H. Seeligson & Co.
| Decision Date | 27 February 1885 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1752. |
| Citation | 63 Tex. 405 |
| Parties | PETER CHRISTIAN v. H. SEELIGSON & CO. ET AL. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Galveston. Tried below before the Hon. Wm. H. Stewart.
Appellant brought suit against A. P. Luckett, Morris Uffjy and T. Ratto, partners under the name of T. Ratto & Co., and against H. Seeligson, doing business as H. Seeligson & Co., and R. P. Sargent and J. H. Smith, for the recovery of damages, actual and exemplary, alleged to have accrued by reason of the suing out by T. Ratto & Co., and H. Seeligson & Co. and R. P. Sargent, of writs of attachment, and the suing out by J. P. Smith of a distress warrant, and the seizure and sale by virtue of said writs of plaintiff's goods at public sale for the use and benefit of defendants. The suing out of the writs was alleged by plaintiff to have been wrongful, without probable cause and malicious. Plaintiff dismissed his suit as to H. Seeligson and Sargent. T. Ratto & Co. and J. H. Smith, answering separately, demurred specially that each was improperly joined with the other defendants, and pleaded not guilty. The demurrers as to joinders of defendants were overruled. Verdict and judgment for appellees.
The questions presented by the assignment of errors referred to the finding of the jury.
Trezevant & Franklin and S. T. Fontaine, for appellant.
James B. Stubbs, for appellee.
Upon the case presented by the record, it does not become necessary to determine whether or not the assignee of a claim for rent is entitled to the statutory remedy of a distress warrant. For it clearly appears that no injury resulted to appellant by reason of the distress warrant sued out by appellee Smith. The merchandise was then in the custody of the law, by virtue of certain writs of attachment, and the same was sold by virtue of such writs. The distress warrant neither took nor detained the merchandise from the possession of the appellant. Nor is it shown that any of the proceeds arising from the sale thereof was applied to Smith's claim. In short, there was no injury whatever shown to have resulted to appellant from the suing out and levying the distress warrant.
It is claimed that the verdict of the jury, so far as the finding is in favor of Ratto & Co., is against the evidence. There is no pretense that the evidence shows malice upon the part of Ratto & Co. in suing out the attachment against appellant. But the point urged is that the evidence disclosed by the record shows that the writ was wrongfully sued out, and hence that the verdict is against the evidence, and that the judgment ought to be reversed. It appears that appellant had a small stock of merchandise, which by the witnesses was valued from $300 to $1,000, and it seems that he was considerably involved in debt. It appears that G. Seeligson & Co. had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gossett v. Jones
...cause becomes important and defeats the right to recover other than actual damages. Bear Bros. v. Marx & Kempner, 63 Tex. 298; Christian v. Seeligson, 63 Tex. 405; Comer v. Powell, Tex.Civ.App., 189 S.W. Chism v. C. W. Hall Co., Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W. 350. Among other assignments, appellant......
-
McKee v. Garner
...sued out the writ he knew or should have known, that he had no title, then he would be liable for exemplary damages" — citing Christian v. Seeligson, 63 Tex. 405; Clark v. Pearce, 80 Tex. 146, 15 S. W. So in this case, if appellant knew, or should have known, that he was not entitled to pos......
-
Chism v. C. W. Hall Motor Co.
...so stated in his affidavit for such attachment was in fact true. Blum v. Strong, 71 Tex. 321, 325, 326, 6 S. W. 167; Christian v. Seeligson & Co., 63 Tex. 405, 406; Bear Bros. & Hirsh v. Marx & Kempner, 63 Tex. 298, 302; Woods v. Huffman, 64 Tex. 98, 100. As original evidence, appellee's sa......
-
Simpson v. Lee
...time he sued out the writ, he knew, or should have known, that he had no title, then he would be liable for exemplary damages. Christian v. Seeligson, 63 Tex. 405; Clark v. Pearce, 80 Tex. 146, 15 S. W. 787. Proof that appellant did not have any title to the land therefore rendered him liab......