Lynn v. Le Gierse & Co.
| Decision Date | 01 January 1877 |
| Citation | 48 Tex. 138 |
| Parties | JAMES LYNN, ADMINISTRATOR, &C., v. LE GIERSE & CO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Anderson. Tried below before the Hon. R. S. Walker.
In the early part of the year 1874, James Lynn purchased from the I. and G. N. R. R. Co. lot No. 4, in block 164, on Spring street, in the city of Palestine, in Anderson county. At this time he was engaged in keeping a saloon and a restaurant, and was indebted to appellant and others. Soon after purchasing this lot, and before improvements had been made thereon, he sold the lot to Peter Lynn, his brother, executing to him a deed of conveyance, which was duly recorded in the clerk's office of Anderson county, Texas. After the purchase, a storehouse was erected upon the lot. In 1876, the appellees sued upon their claim in the District Court of Anderson county, and recovered judgment against James Lynn, under which judgment execution was issued and levied upon the house and lot. The same was sold, and the appellees became the purchasers for $250, and afterwards brought suit in the District Court, against James Lynn, Peter Lynn, and George Hutchenson, to recover the property, and to set aside the conveyance made to Peter Lynn, for fraud. After the institution of suit, Peter Lynn died, and his estate was administered upon by James Lynn, his brother. At the May Term of the District Court for Anderson county, the case was tried before a jury, who found for the plaintiff, (appellee,) upon which verdict the court rendered judgment, annulling the deed from James Lynn to Peter Lynn, from which judgment the appellant for the estate of Peter Lynn appealed.
The evidence to establish the fraud was conflicting.
Gammage & Cartwright, for appellant, cited Danzey v. Smith, 4 Tex., 411;Cobb v. Norwood, 11 Tex., 561;Robinson v. Martel, 11 Tex., 155;Wilson v. Trawick, 10 Tex., 435. They also argued upon the facts that the evidence did not sustain the charge of fraud.
Greenwood & Gooch, for appellees, cited Weisiger v. Chisholm, 22 Tex., 672;Dangerfield v. Paschal, 20 Tex., 541;Allen v. Stephanes, 18 Tex., 669.
A judgment creditor may cause his execution to be levied on land fraudulently conveyed by the debtor, and if he himself becomes the purchaser at the execution sale, he may then bring his suit to have the fraudulent conveyance set aside, and recover the land.
True, he may, if he sees fit, first institute his suit to have the conveyance declared fraudulent, and the land subjected to his execution; but his right to proceed to levy and sell, in the first instance, is firmly established. (Castro...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equitable Trust Co. v. Roland, 16758
...prior transfers of debtor as fraudulent conveyances. See Rutherford v. Carr, 99 Tex. 101, 104, 87 S.W. 815, 816 (1905); Lynn v. Le Gierse, 48 Tex. 138, 139 (1877); Castro v. Illies, 22 Tex. 479, 503 (1858). Indeed our State Supreme Court stated in Lynn v. Le Gierse, 48 Tex. A judgment credi......
-
Baker v. West
...Supreme Court on recommendation of the Commission of Appeals. 229 S. W. 321. In passing upon this question, Judge Gould said in Lynn v. Le Gierse, 48 Tex. 138: "A judgment creditor may cause his execution to be levied on land fraudulently conveyed by the debtor, and if he himself becomes th......
-
Wagner v. Law
... ... Hager v. Shindler, 29 Cal. 47; ... Hildreth v. Sands, 2 Johns. Ch. 35; Judson v ... Lyford, (Cal.) 24 P. 286; Lynn v. Le Gierse, 48 ... Tex. 138; Gould v. Steinburg, 84 Ill. 170; ... McDonald v. Johnson, 48 Iowa, 72; Howland v ... Knox, ... ...
-
Andrews v. Archer County, 12668.
...a specific lien. "After judgment, he could proceed by levy and sale of the property under execution in the first instance. Lynn v. Le Gierse, 48 Tex. 138; Freeman on Executions, § And the opinion quotes with approval from Bump on Fraudulent Conveyances, in part, as follows: "A creditor must......