Scarborough v. Hilliard
| Decision Date | 21 November 1894 |
| Citation | 28 S.W. 231 |
| Parties | SCARBOROUGH et al. v. HILLIARD. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Lee county; Lafayette Kirk, Judge.
Action by H. P. Hilliard, trustee, against J. S. Scarborough and others, to recover the value of a certain stock of merchandise. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Appellee brought this suit against J. S. Scarborough, sheriff of Lee county, and the sureties on his official bond and the First National Bank of Flatonia to recover the value of a certain stock of merchandise alleged to have been seized and converted by said sheriff at the instance of said bank. The plaintiff claimed that he was holding said goods under a trust deed executed to him by J. G. Moore & Co. for the benefit of certain of their preferred creditors; that the First National Bank of Flatonia caused an attachment to be issued against said Moore & Co. and had said goods seized under said attachment. The defendants, besides general and special demurrers and a general denial, pleaded fraud in the execution of the trust deed under which the plaintiff claimed title to the property.
There is no statement of facts in the record. The court below filed conclusions of fact, which are adopted by this court.
Brown, Lane & Jackson and Ed. R. Sinks, for appellants. D. W. Doom and T. W. Gregory, for appellee.
KEY, J. (after stating the facts).
Although there is no statement of facts in the transcript, appellants' third and fourth assignments of error attack certain conclusions of fact filed by the trial court. It is charged that these conclusions are not correct, because in conflict with certain facts enumerated in the court's conclusions of fact. If it should be held that some of the evidence recited in the court's findings tends to establish conclusions different from those reached by the court, it would not follow that the conclusion of fact distinctly found by the court was not correct. There being no statement of facts, this court cannot know how much and how strong the evidence was in support of a particular finding.
All the other questions involved in the case are well settled in support of the judgment, and it is not necessary to discuss them in detail and cite authorities covering all of them. There is one phase of the case that necessarily requires a decision in appellee's favor. The claims of the secured creditors were bona fide debts, and exceeded in value all the property conveyed by the trust...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bangs Milling Co. v. Burns
...the debtor's property an amount less in value than the amount honestly owing there can, as a matter of law, be no fraud in it. Scarborough v. Hilliard, 28 S.W. 231; Freyble v. Tierman, 13 S.W. 370; Sawyer Bradshaw, 17 N.E. 812; Goetter v. Norman, 19 So. Rep. 56; Adkins v. Bynum, 19 So. Rep.......
-
Sweet v. Lowery
...finding, we cannot say, in the absence of a statement of facts, that the four findings referred to are erroneous. Scarborough v. Hilliard (Tex. Civ. App.) 28 S. W. 231. Judgment 1. For opinion on rehearing, see 63 S. W. 1022. ...