Ridley v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 01 January 1875
• Citation: 43 Tex. 135
• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Parties: D. RIDLEY v. TRAVIS HENDERSON.

43 Tex. 135

D. RIDLEY

v.TRAVIS HENDERSON.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1875.

APPEAL from Lamar. Tried below before the Hon. J. C. Easton.

No briefs for appellant have reached the reporters.

Hale & Scott, for appellee.

ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE.

This is a proceeding by mandamus to compel the district clerk to issue an execution and an order of sale of land upon a judgment rendered in favor of appellee against Shearon for a sum of money, $4,585.95, and condemning a tract of land that had been attached to be sold to pay the same. The land is shown by the judgment to have been claimed by Louisa Hancock, who derived title to it through J. M. and M. Hancock, all of whom were parties to the suit. The judgment also showed that plaintiff, Henderson, claimed a lien by attachment upon the land before the sale of it to Louisa Hancock by J. M. and M. Hancock, and the verdict declares that the transfer was fraudulently made.

Thus it appears that the title to the land was tried in this suit as between the attachment lien of Henderson and the transfer to Louisa Hancock, and adjudged in favor of Henderson and against the Hancocks, from which judgment they appealed, and gave a bond with sureties, approved by the clerk, in the sum of one thousand dollars, conditioned to “pay all costs which have been adjudged against them in the District Court, and also pay all such costs and damages as may be adjudged against them in the Supreme Court on this appeal.” Shearon did not appeal nor join in the appeal bond. If the judgment be regarded as a recovery of the land from the Hancocks, which it certainly is, so far as they are concerned as parties to the suit, as indicated by the judgment, then the bond given by them is substantially in compliance with the appeal bond required by the statute in a case for the recovery of land. (Paschal's Dig., art. 1492.) If it is a judgment that bars them from objecting to the sale of the land, or which would conclude them in setting up their title in another action, then surely it is as to them a recovery of the land as against their claim and title to it.

But regarding it as a judgment in a suit for money and the enforement of an attachment lien, as it is in reference to the rights and interests of the plaintiff, Henderson, the defendants, Hancocks, if unable to give a supersedeas bond, had a right to give a bond for costs and damages only, (under art. 1493, Paschal's Dig.,) which would suspend the judgment as to the land pending the...