Cox v. Trent
| Citation | 20 S.W. 1118 |
| Parties | COX <I>et al.</I> v. TRENT. |
| Decision Date | 20 December 1892 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Hill county court; J. G. ABNEY, Judge.
Conversion by W. H. Trent against John P. Cox and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
B. D. Tarlton, B. P. Hyers, and W. C. Morrow, for appellants. McKinnon & Carlton, for appellee.
This suit was instituted by W. H. Trent against Casey & Swasey, as attaching creditors of G. W. Benton, and against John P. Cox, the officer who executed the attachment by seizing and selling the stock in trade of a small retail liquor store in Hill county. Trent's title depended upon the validity of a transfer made to him by said Benton, through his manager, J. F. Etchison, only a few days before the attachment was levied, December 28, 1888. Appellants attacked this conveyance for fraud. Trent had been clerking for Etchison or Benton for about 13 months, as he testified, before he made the purchase, and claimed that the consideration was wages due him for that period of time at the rate of $40 per month, and also some money loaned during that time and partly used in the business. He filed his suit on the 1st day of January, 1889, and, in addition to the value of the goods converted, claimed damages for the conversion of the unexpired occupation tax license, which he claimed was also sold to him as a part of the saloon assets.
Much stress is laid in the briefs of counsel on the point that the suit was filed on a legal holiday. This objection appellants seek to avail themselves of under a general demurrer and motion in arrest of judgment; but this, in our opinion, they cannot do. Nothing short of a special exception, promptly made and urged, will reach such a defect. Williams v. Verne, 68 Tex. 414, 4 S. W. Rep. 548.
The 7th, 8th, and 9th assignments of error relate to the exclusion of certain letters and other evidence tending to show, slightly though it may be, that the conveyance of the property in question was not made in entire good faith, in consideration of a debt of unquestioned validity. These letters were written by appellee in the name of and for Etchison, as the manager of the saloon, to Casey & Swasey, in October, 1887, and March, 1888, and tended to show that the debt which appellee claims was then accruing, and afterwards became the consideration for the transfer, was in fact not accruing, or, if accruing, that its existence was thereby attempted to be concealed from Casey...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Chandler
...v. Stephenson, 72 S.W. 106, 107 (Tex.Civ.App.1902, no writ); Burns v. Barker, 71 S.W. 328, 329 (Tex.Civ.App.1902, no writ); Cox v. Trent, 20 S.W. 1118, 1119 (Tex.Civ.App.1892, no writ). Here, the Hospital and the Center filed their original answers on March 4, 1994, and March 14, 1994, resp......
-
Erback v. Donald
...the suit was actually filed on Sunday, July 26th, if such was the case. Ullman v. Verne, 68 Tex. 414, 4 S.W. 548, 549; Cox v. Trent, 1 Tex.Civ.App. 639, 20 S.W. 1118; Burns v. Barker, 31 Tex.Civ.App. 82, 71 S.W. 328; Benchoff v. Stephenson, Tex.Civ.App., 72 S.W. 106. We consider that the tr......
-
Cook v. Greenberg
...only be proved by circumstances; and testimony of any such circumstance, though slight, should have been admitted. Cox v. Trent, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 639, 20 S. W. 1118; Hunter v. Lanius, 82 Tex. 677, 18 S. W. 201; Day v. Stone, 59 Tex. 2. It was not error to permit plaintiff to use as evidence......
-
Faulkner v. Cassidy
...under said unexpired license, and to have such designation made in such license, did not render the bond sued on void. Cox v. Trent, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 639, 20 S. W. 1118; Morris v. Mills et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 82 S. W. If, however, we should be mistaken in the foregoing views, still we thin......