Reed v. Samuels

• Decision Date: 01 January 1858
• Parties: ELIJAH REED v. H. SAMUELS AND ANOTHER.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

22 Tex. 114

ELIJAH REED

v.H. SAMUELS AND ANOTHER.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1858.

If a creditor has been not only harsh and oppressive, but regardless of the rights of his debtor, and has violated the law, in the too eager pursuit of his demand, the injured debtor may properly apply to the courts for redress.

But when a debtor comes into court to complain against his creditor, he must come with clean hands; and juries may well require clear and full proof that the creditor has violated the law, when the complaining debtor is, in the first instance, guilty of fraud and wrong.

When an attachment is merely wrongfully sued out against a debtor, upon a plea of reconvention, for damages, for the suing out of such attachment, the jury can only give such damages as the defendant has actually sustained by reason of the attachment; but when the attachment has been sued out maliciously, and with the intention to harass and injure the defendant, they may award exemplary damages.

ERROR from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. A. W. Terrell. Suit by H. Samuels and H. Mosson against plaintiff in error, to recover the value of eleven hundred and twenty pounds of beef hides. At the time of commencing their suit, the defendants also sued out an attachment, which was levied upon the property of the plaintiff in error. The point upon which the case was disposed of by the court, is apparent from the opinion.Hancock and West, for plaintiff in error.

Smith and Campbell, for defendant in error.

BELL, J.

We do not deem it necessary to the proper determination of this cause, to notice all the errors assigned and argued by counsel. The merits of the case lie within a very narrow compass. The evidence shows clearly that the plaintiff in error violated his contract to deliver eleven hundred and twenty pounds of hides, entrusted to him by defendants in error, to be delivered to their consignee at Port Lavaca. The plaintiff in error (Reed) does not attempt to explain his failure to comply with his contract for the delivery of the hides at Port Lavaca; but complains of the great wrong and injury done him by the plaintiffs, in the court below, in suing out the attachment.

Pleas in reconvention, for damages for the malicious and vexatious suing out of attachments, have become very common in the courts of this state, insomuch that a party can seldom resort to the remedies which the law gives him for the collection of his just demands, without finding himself involved...