Monroe v. Watson

• Decision Date: 01 January 1856
• Citation: 17 Tex. 625
• Parties: HUGH W. MONROE AND ANOTHER v. L. E. WATSON.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

17 Tex. 625

HUGH W. MONROE AND ANOTHER

v.L. E. WATSON.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1856.

Where the plaintiff sued the defendant in a justice's court for $55, and attached a mule, and the defendant claimed damages on the ground that the attachment was wrongfully obtained, and there was a verdict of a jury in the justice's court in favor of the defendant for $100 damages, from which the debt due the plaintiff should be deducted; and the case being carried by the plaintiff to the district court, nearly the same verdict and judgment were rendered there, on appeal, this court refused to reverse the judgment, it appearing that there was evidence to warrant the jury in finding that the attachment had been obtained without probable cause.

Appeal from Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones.

Suit by appellants against appellee, in justice's court, for account of $55; attachment obtained on the ground that the defendant was about to remove out of the state. Levied on a mule, which defendant replevied. Plea of reconvention for the wrongful suing out of the attachment; damages laid at $100. Trial by a jury and verdict for the defendant for $100, less plaintiffs' account of $55. Certiorari by plaintiffs. Trial and verdict in district court for defendant for $46.85. Judgment. Motion for new trial by plaintiffs overruled; appeal by plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs proved that the defendant was about to go out of the state, and that he had, in answer to questions, made declarations, which, if seriously made, were inconsistent with an honest intention to pay his debts; but there was no evidence that such declarations were told to the plaintiffs before they obtained the attachment. It was proved by the defendant that he was very badly afflicted with inflammatory rheumatism; was very irritable, in consequence; was confined to his bed when the attachment was levied; that he was thinking and talking of going to the sulphur springs in Arkansas; that he had made a crop of corn of one thousand bushels, and that in offering his property for sale, he said he would not want the price all in cash, etc., etc.

Mills, for appellants. The evidence shows appellants had probable cause at least for the proceedings, though there may have been no sufficient legal cause for the attachment; in such a case the real injury should have been the measure of damages. (6 Tex. 406; Drake on Attachments, secs. 153 to 156.) But the extent of the injury, if any, the record...