Tian v. Lloyd
| Decision Date | 29 June 1899 |
| Citation | 52 S.W. 982 |
| Parties | TIAN v. LLOYD.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Suit by Matilda Tian against Thomas Lloyd. From a judgment in favor of defendant on a cross bill, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Byron Johnson and Marsene Johnson, for plaintiff in error. John D. Fearhake, for defendant in error.
Matilda Tian brought this suit in the district court of Galveston county against Thomas Lloyd for an injunction to restrain him from intruding himself upon her homestead premises in the city of Galveston, and preventing her from moving into, and peaceably occupying and enjoying, the same. She also prayed for damages. Thomas Lloyd, after answer to the petition, set up a cross action against the plaintiff for $300, which he alleged was the balance due him upon a contract with the plaintiff for the erection of certain improvements upon the premises described in the petition. He alleged that he had entered into a written contract with plaintiff for the improvements, and for a lien upon the lot of land upon which they were to be made; that, by the terms of the contract, the money to be paid for the improvements was to be paid in installments; that, after paying the first installment, the plaintiff was unable to meet the next payment, when, by an agreement with the Improvement & Loan Company, the plaintiff borrowed the money from it for the completion of the work, for the security of which the defendant Lloyd transferred the contract and lien to the company; that, in consideration of such transfer, the company undertook the full and prompt payment to him of all the sums of money provided for in the contract; and that the sum of $300 remained unpaid, and for the payment thereof a lien was still subsisting in his favor. He asked that the Improvement & Loan Company be made a party defendant to his cross bill, and for judgment against it and the plaintiff, and for foreclosure of his lien, etc. Plaintiff replied to the cross bill of the defendant by demurrer and also pleaded, in bar of his right to recover the balance claimed, damages because of his failure to comply with his contract in the character of the work done and material furnished. The Improvement & Loan Company in its answer averred that the contract had been assigned to it by Lloyd in consideration of the agreement of all parties that it would loan plaintiff the money stipulated therein for the construction of the house, and that the plaintiff had executed her 60 notes to the company...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wenger v. First Nat. Bank of Biloxi
... ... v. Gallagher, 5 Colo ... 23; Fries v. Wiser, 62 Pa.Super. 218; Ehlers v ... Elder, 51 Miss. 495; Miller v. Carlisle, 127 ... Cal. 279; Tian v. Lloyd, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 433, 52 ... S.W. 982; Duff v. Snider, 54 Miss. 245; Williams ... & Williams v. Warren, 99 So. 269; Bohannon v ... ...
-
Milburn v. Athans
...upon such cases as May v. Taylor, 22 Tex. 348; Ablowich v. Greenville Nat. Bank, 95 Tex. 429, 67 S.W. 79, 881; and Tian v. Lloyd, 21 Tex.Civ.App. 433, 52 S.W. 982, writ refused. These cases indicate that trials were had on general charges and not on special issues, long prior to our present......
-
Gibson v. Oberfelder
...brief for the facts relied upon in support of the proceedings below; this even not being mandatory on our part. See Tian v. Lloyd, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 433, 52 S. W. 982; Brannin v. Wear Boogher Dry Goods Co., 30 S. W. Accepting, then, the statement of facts presented in the several countersta......