Epps & Mattox v. Hazlewood

• Decision Date: 18 October 1905
• Citation: 89 S.W. 809
• Parties: EPPS & MATTOX et al. v. HAZLEWOOD.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

89 S.W. 809

EPPS & MATTOX et al. v. HAZLEWOOD.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

October 18, 1905.

Appeal from Grayson County Court; G. P. Webb, Judge.

Action by L. B. Hazlewood against Epps & Mattox and another. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Rehearing denied November 15, 1905.

J. F. Holt and Smith & Beaty, for appellants. R. R. Hazlewood and Don A. Bliss, for appellee.

NEILL, J.

This suit was brought by appellee against C. C. Epps and J. P. Mattox, composing the firm of Epps & Mattox, and W. B. O'Neal, as constable, and the sureties on his official bond to recover damages, both actual and exemplary, against them for the seizure and conversion, under the guise of a writ of attachment issued out of the justice's court in favor of Epps & Mattox against one G. W. Hardy, of certain cotton owned by appellee. The case was tried before a jury and the trial resulted in a judgment against Epps, Mattox, O'Neal, and the sureties on the latter's official bond for the sum of $320, actual damages, as well as in a judgment against Epps, Mattox, and O'Neal in the sum of $100, exemplary damages. The evidence is reasonably sufficient to show that the cotton in question was grown by Hardy on premises rented by him, and prior to its alleged seizure and conversion by defendants it had been purchased in good faith from him by the appellee, who paid or assumed the payment for Hardy of indebtedness due by Hardy equal to the value of said property; that after such purchase the appellee informed Epps, Mattox, and O'Neal of his purchase of the cotton, and exhibited to them a bill of sale in writing from Hardy conveying the property to him; that, notwithstanding said appellants were informed and knew of appellee's ownership of the property, they willfully and wrongfully under a writ of attachment issued in favor of Epps & Mattox against Hardy, which they placed in the hands of W. B. O'Neal as constable, seized and converted said property, which was of the reasonable value of $320.00, to their own use, thereby depriving appellee of the value thereof; and that said seizure and conversion was malicious and done with the intention to wrong and injure the appellee.

Under the first assignment, which complains of the court's submitting the issue of exemplary damages, appellants' proposition is that plaintiff's petition was insufficient to enable him to recover exemplary damages because it failed to negative the existence of probable cause. The only statement made under this proposition is: "There was nothing in the petition showing the ground on which the attachment issued or denying the existence of probable cause." The existence of probable cause for the...