Smith v. So Rill
| Decision Date | 22 November 1899 |
| Citation | 54 S.W. 38 |
| Parties | SMITH v. SO RILL. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Action by W. R. So Rill against Charles C. Smith. There was a decree in favor of plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Modified and affirmed.
Jas. Raley, for plaintiff in error. Cox & Maydole, for defendant in error.
There is no statement of facts, and therefore conclusions of fact by this court are impossible. The brief of plaintiff in error shows that his first assignment of error is not entitled to notice. The third assignment states that the court erred in rendering judgment for the value of one-half of the goods and stock, without at same time vesting the title thereto in defendant. Defendant was not entitled to such an adjudication. Cooley, Torts (2d Ed.) p. 537, where the rule is stated to be that the title does not vest until the judgment is satisfied. The effect of a judgment for the value of the property need not be declared, in terms, by the judgment, whether it vested title when rendered or when satisfied.
The second assignment is that the court erred in that part of the decree wherein it is adjudged that defendant, Charles C. Smith, "shall deliver to plaintiff all of plaintiff's private property left in the store No. 416 West Houston street, San Antonio, Tex., shown by the evidence to be books belonging to plaintiff's private library, and one magnifying glass"; for the reason that it was not alleged that plaintiff had any property in the store that had fallen into the hands of defendant, and there was no prayer for such order. We find no such prayer. That part of the decree will, as suggested by defendant in error, be set aside, but in all other things it will be affirmed. Modified and affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welsh v. Carder
... ... 652; Laughlin v. Barnes, 76 Mo.App. 258; ... Tollman Co. v. Waite, 119 Mich. 341; s. c., 78 N.W ... 124; Haas v. Sackett, 41 N.W. 237; Smith v. So ... Rill, 54 S.W. 38; Clark v. Cullen, 44 S.W. 204; ... Cooley on Torts (1 Ed.), 458 (2 Ed.), 537; Miller v ... Hide, 161 Mass. 472; s. c., ... ...
-
Sibley v. Fitch, 2887
...to the property in controversy. 42 T.J. p. 570, Sec. 56; St. Louis A. & T. Ry. Co. v. McKinsey, 78 Tex. 298, 14 S.W. 645; Smith v. So Rill, Tex.Civ.App., 54 S.W. 38. Consequently, we fail to see how any legal right of appellant has been in any wise prejudiced by reason of the action of whic......
-
Miles v. Dorn
...defendant, vests a title to the property in the defendant. Greer v. Lafayette County Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 47 S. W. 737; Smith v. So Rill (Tex. Civ. App.) 54 S. W. 38; Moore v. King, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 400, 23 S. W. 484; 28 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2d Ed.) As to whether the landlord has a mere l......
-
Bruyere Const. Co. v. Bewley
...and that title then vests as of the date of the conversion. Greer v. Lafayette County Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 47 S. W. 737; Smith v. So Rill (Tex. Civ. App.) 54 S. W. 38; Clark v. Cullen (Tenn. Ch. App.) 44 S. W. 204. We think the same rule is applicable here in principle, with the qualificat......