Oak Cliff College for Young Ladies v. Armstrong
| Decision Date | 11 February 1899 |
| Citation | Oak Cliff College for Young Ladies v. Armstrong, 50 S.W. 610 (Tex. App. 1899) |
| Parties | OAK CLIFF COLLEGE FOR YOUNG LADIES et al. v. ARMSTRONG. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Dallas county; W. J. J. Smith, Judge.
Suit by Oscar Armstrong against the Oak Cliff College for Young Ladies and others. There was a decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
This suit was instituted by Oscar Armstrong against Oak Cliff College, Oak Cliff College for Young Ladies, John W. Roach, and W. L. Diamond. It is based upon eight notes for $60 each, and each providing for interest and attorney's fees, charged to have been executed by Oak Cliff College August 1, 1895. It is alleged that they were given as part of the purchase price of seven pianos, and that a mortgage was given upon the pianos to secure the payment of the notes. It is charged that, while the Oak Cliff College and the Oak Cliff College for Young Ladies have separate and distinct charters, they are in fact one and the same corporation. It is alleged that the Oak Cliff College for Young Ladies, John W. Roach, and W. L. Diamond are setting up claim to the mortgaged property, and judgment is sought against the Oak Cliff College, and the foreclosure of the mortgage against all the defendants. No answer was filed by the Oak Cliff College. The other defendants answered, and their answers are stated in their brief as follows: The plaintiff filed supplemental pleadings, demurring generally and specially to defendants' pleadings making the American Well Works a party. These demurrers were sustained, and the American Well Works was dismissed from the suit. The case was then tried before a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the Oak Cliff College for his debt, interest, and attorney's fees, and foreclosure of the mortgage as to all the defendants. From this judgment the defendants Oak Cliff College for Young Ladies, John W. Roach, and W. L. Diamond have appealed.
J. D. Fouraker, Morris & Crow, and Porter & Cohron, for appellants. Wharton & Young, for appellee.
FINLEY, C. J. (after stating the facts).
First. There is little,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Mossler Acceptance Co. v. Johnson
...must prove not only a consideration advanced, but also that they had no notice of the unrecorded lien. In Oak Cliff College for Young Ladies v. Armstrong, Tex.Civ.App., 50 S. W. 610, the Court held that under Articles 5489 and 5490 there was a clear distinction between "creditors" and "subs......
-
Western Nat. Bank v. Texas Christian University
...in garnishment." In the cases of Stewart v. Gordon, 65 Tex. 345, Frey v. Railway Co., 86 Tex. 466, 25 S. W. 609, and Oak Cliff College v. Armstrong, 50 S. W. 610, as well as in other authorities cited in appellant's brief, it was held that actions for debt cannot be joined with actions for ......
-
Lindig v. Johnson City State Bank
...faith as to creditors, but it does make such requirement of subsequent purchasers and mortgagees or lienholders. Oak Cliff College v. Armstrong (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S. W. 610. Therefore the bank was not a "creditor" within the meaning of the Chattel Mortgage Law, and its claim must come unde......
-
Stewart v. Woods Electric Co., 9975.
...91 Tex. 385, 43 S. W. 872; Neely-Harris-Cunningham Co. v. Lacy Bros. & Jones (Tex. Civ. App.) 152 S. W. 441; Oak Cliff College v. Armstrong (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S. W. 610, 612; Lindig v. Johnson City State Bank (Tex. Com. App.) 41 S. W.(2d) 222, 223; Stewart & Alexander Lumber Co. v. Miller ......