Morris v. T. W. House & Another
| Decision Date | 01 January 1870 |
| Citation | 32 Tex. 492 |
| Parties | T. W. MORRIS v. T. W. HOUSE AND ANOTHER. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
1. Though in strict accuracy of language it may be true that the trustee of a fraudulent and void assignment does not hold under it the effects attempted to be thus assigned, or the funds arising out of such effects, yet he holds such effects or funds in his own wrong, and the law makes him the trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the creditors of the assignor; and the effects or funds in the hands of the trustee can be reached either by the process of garnishment or by a creditor's bill.
2. A judgment creditor who, by process of garnishment, seized such effects or funds, was entitled to have the whole of them applied to his demand, to the exclusion of other creditors who were not in a position to pursue the funds or effects.
ERROR from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. R. E. B. Baylor.
The opinion shows the facts of this case.
Sayles & Bassett, for the plaintiff in error.
J. D. & D. C. Giddings, for the defendants in error.
At the spring term of the district court of Harris county for the year 1856, House and Mather recovered a judgment against D. B. Madden. Execution was issued and returned not satisfied. On the necessary affidavit of T. W. House, one of the plaintiffs, a writ of garnishment issued and was served upon T. W. Morris, the appellant. Morris filed his answer, denying that he had any money or property of any kind in his hands belonging to Madden. This answer was controverted by the affidavit of House; and Morris being a resident of Washington county, the case was taken to that jurisdiction. Morris admits in his answer that he holds, under an assignment to him by Madden, about $4,000 in notes and book accounts, and refers to the deed of assignment, making it virtually a part of his answer, together with the schedules of assets and debts which were delivered to him by Madden. There was included in the assignment 900 acres of land in Washington county, excepting 200 claimed as a homestead by Madden, and also a tract of 225 acres previously sold, leaving but 475 to pass to the assignee. A power of attorney accompanied the trust, authorizing the assignee, Morris, to sell the property for cash, or on six months' credit, and to collect all debts due Madden, by suit or otherwise, and to pay, first, the expenses incident to the execution of the trust, with ten per cent. commission to the assignee, and then to pay to the creditors of Madden a pro rata dividend, provided that they should, within thirty days after the execution of the assignment, file with Morris a full release of all their claims against Madden, and only such as would so relieve him to participate in the dividend, and whatever balance of the proceeds of the property remained in the hands of Morris (after the trust should be thus administered) was to be paid over to Madden on his representations. After the filing of this answer, the plaintiffs below amended their petition and attacked the trust deed on the ground of fraud, alleging that the assignment was made to hinder, delay and defraud the creditors of Madden, and especially the plaintiffs. The garnishee, Morris, demurred to this petition, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.V. v. R.V.
...S.W.2d at 24. Obviously, it has been a factor. Fraud is intentional, tortious conduct and "vitiates whatever it touches." Morris v. House, 32 Tex. 492, 495 (1870). See also Altai, 918 S.W.2d at 456. When egregious conduct such as fraud causes one to be ignorant of an injury or wrong, we hav......
-
Computer Associates Intern., Inc. v. Altai, Inc.
...Owen v. King, 130 Tex. 614, 111 S.W.2d 695, 697 (1938). In short, we have said: "[F]raud vitiates whatever it touches, Morris v. House, 32 Tex. 492 (1870), and ... limitations begin to run from the time the fraud is discovered or could have been discovered by the defrauded party by exercise......
-
Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp. (In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Mortg.–Backed Sec. Litig.)
...justified it on the grounds that, “fraud vitiates whatever it touches.” Computer Associates, 918 S.W.2d at 455–56 (citing Morris v. House, 32 Tex. 492 (1870)). A victim of fraud, by definition, does not know of his injury right away; it is therefore appropriate that the statute does not beg......
-
Cox v. Upjohn Co.
...held that "fraud vitiates whatever it touches." 6 Estate of Stonecipher v. Estate of Butts, 591 S.W.2d 806, 809 (Tex.1979); Morris v. House, 32 Tex. 492, 495 (1870). Statutes of limitations are designed to provide defendants with a fair opportunity to defend against a lawsuit while witnesse......