Mcanelly v. Chapman
| Decision Date | 01 January 1856 |
| Citation | 18 Tex. 198 |
| Parties | MCANELLY v. CHAPMAN. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Where one buys property or receives it as bailee, with notice of a claim of title by another, adverse to his vendor or bailor, he takes and holds subject to the rights of the adverse claimant, though ostensible title may have been in his vendor or bailor. 3 Tex. 119;6 Tex. 515;23 Tex. 606.
Where a bailee has knowledge of a claim of title by another adverse to his bailor, and by direction of his bailor carries off the property, he becomes responsible to such adverse claimant for the value of the property, if the latter proves to be the rightful owner, whether the suit by which such right is established then or thereafter brought.
Error from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. John Hancock.
The record in this case was before this court on the appeal of a co-defendant of the plaintiff in error, at Austin, 1855, reported in 15 Tex. 400, Oliver v. Chapman. About the time that suit was brought, and before the service of the writ of sequestration issued in the case, the personal property in controversy was run beyond the jurisdiction of the court. At the spring term, 1851, the plaintiff filed a supplemental petition, making McAnelly a party defendant. The petition charged that McAnelly confederated with Oliver to run off the property specified in the supplemental petition, in order to defraud the plaintiff, and that McAnelly took charge of the property and ran it off.
McAnelly answered at the same term, “that on the 25th day of August, 1850, he contracted with said Edward R. Oliver, for a valuable consideration to be paid him therefor, to take charge of and sell the” property, specifying it; that “he took charge of the property and sold a portion at different times and places, under instructions of said Oliver;” and that he turned over the proceeds of the property sold, and the unsold property to Oliver. He admitted in his answer, “that at the time he took charge of said property, and a short time previous thereto, he heard it remarked that some difficulty had taken place between Chapman and Oliver about the settlement of their affairs,” and that he refused to have anything to do with the property until first satisfied that Oliver was the legal owner, and that upon seeing the bills of sale he became satisfied. It was proved also that he knew of the controversy, when he converted the property.
There was a judgment against McAnelly for the value of the property converted by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirkpatrick v. San Angelo Nat. Bank
...1 Tex. Civ. App. 185, 20 S. W. 949; Horseley v. Moss, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 341, 23 S. W. 1115; also Roberts v. Yarboro, 41 Tex. 453; McAnelly v. Chapman, 18 Tex. 198; Cyc. vol. 5, p. We think it clear that if both of said banks were jointly and severally responsible to plaintiffs for the loss o......
-
Graham v. Hawkins
...and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appealed.J. W. Ferris, for appellant.A. A. Kemble, attorney for appellees, cited McNally v. Chapman, 18 Tex. 198;Weathered v. Boon, 17 Tex. 148;Weathered v. Boon, 23 Tex. 676;Grumbles v. Sneed, 22 Tex. 574;Gilbeau v. Mays, 15 Tex. 415;Powell v. Hal......
-
GREAT WESTERN DRILLING, LTD. v. Alexander
...cites the cases of Nacol v. Metallic Development Corp., 614 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1980, writ dism'd); McAnelly v. Chapman, 18 Tex. 198 (1856); and Oliver v. Chapman, 15 Tex. 400 (1855), in support of its proposition that Alexander was guilty of conversion. However, those cases......
-
Baker v. Meisch
... ... 591, 595; Wade, Notice, secs. 67, 338, 341, 344, ... 347; Crocker v. Crocker, 31 N.Y. 507; Wooster v ... Sherwood, 25 Id., 278; McAnelly v. Chapman, 18 ... Tex. 198; Saltus v. Everett, 20 Wend. [N. Y.], 267.) ... Property may be reclaimed in an altered state, and from third ... ...