Ellis v. Hudson

• Decision Date: 06 January 1898
• Citation: 44 S.W. 550
• Parties: ELLIS et al. v. HUDSON.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

44 S.W. 550

ELLIS et al. v. HUDSON.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

January 6, 1898.

Error from district court, Harris county; S. H. Brashear, Judge.

Action by Eugene A. Hudson against George Ellis and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Perryman & Bullitt, for plaintiffs in error. Jones & Garnett and Burke, Griggs & Co., for defendant in error.

WILLIAMS, J.

Defendant in error, Eugene A. Hudson, brought this suit against plaintiff in error George Ellis, sheriff of Harris county, to recover the value of certain goods which had been seized by him, as the property of Norred & Luna, under a writ of attachment against them in favor of the Ware Furniture Manufacturing Company. Plaintiff alleged that the goods were his property. Ellis impleaded the Ware Manufacturing Company, and the sureties upon an indemnity bond which they had given to induce him to make the levy. The issue made by the pleadings and evidence was whether a transfer of the goods made by Norred & Luna to Hudson prior to the levy was a bona fide sale, or was made for the purpose of defrauding the creditors of Norred & Luna. The case was tried by a jury, and a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendants have prosecuted this writ of error. We have carefully considered the evidence in the case, and have reached the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding of the jury, as it must have been made, that the purchase was made by Hudson from Norred & Luna in good faith, for a valuable consideration, and without notice of any intent on the part of Norred & Luna to defraud their creditors, if such intent existed. We do not deem it necessary to set out the evidence upon which the issue depended. The evidence also sufficiently showed the market value of the goods at the time and the place of seizure, and justified the jury in allowing the plaintiff the amount found by the verdict. It remains only for us to consider the assignments of error based upon the rulings of the court.

The first assignment is, in substance, that the charge of the court, while restricting the jury in finding the value of the goods to the value at the time of seizure, did not restrict them to the value at the place of seizure. The evidence as to value all had reference to the value of the goods in Houston, where the levy was made. The jury could not have considered the value anywhere else. Besides, if the charge was defective in the...