Tombler v. Palestine Ice Co.
Decision Date | 08 December 1897 |
Parties | TOMBLER v. PALESTINE ICE CO. et al.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Anderson county; A. A. Aldrich, Judge.
Garnishment suit by M. C. Tombler, as a creditor of one Ed. Hogaboom, against the Palestine Ice Company. From a judgment in favor of George C. Ball and another, as interveners, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Thos. B. Greenwood & Son and Greaves & Martin, for appellant. S. A. McMeans, for appellees.
This is a garnishment suit instituted by appellant, as a creditor of one Ed. Hogaboom, against the Palestine Ice Company. The latter (a private corporation) answered that Hogaboom had in his name on the books of the company 174 shares of stock, of the par value of $100 per share, but that George C. Ball asserted a claim to 101 of the shares, and O. Wheeler claimed the remaining 73 shares. Ball and Wheeler intervened; setting up that the shares had been deposited with them by Hogaboom (101 with Ball, and the remainder with Wheeler) as collateral security for debts owing to each, respectively. Appellant, in his reply to the pleas of intervention, pleaded that the garnishee was a private corporation, under title 20, Rev. St. Tex. 1879, and that under its by-laws, as well as the statutes, all of its stock was transferable only on the books of the corporation, and that appellant had fixed a valid lien on the stock of Hogaboom while it stood in his name on the books of the corporation, without notice, actual or constructive, of any transfer. Appellant also pleaded the statute of limitation of four years against the claim of Ball. The cause was tried without a jury, and resulted in a judgment ordering the stock to be sold as under execution, and that the claim of the interveners be discharged before the claim of appellant was paid.
We find as the conclusions of fact of this court the statement of facts found in the record, which is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Surety Co. of New York v. Bay City Cattle Co.
...Court of Civil Appeals) 247 S. W. 897; Hudson v. Wilkerson, 61 Tex. 606; Goldfrank & Co. v. Young, 64 Tex. 432; Tombler v. Palestine Ice Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 596, 43 S. W. 896; Craig v. Martin, Bennett & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 102 S. W. 1172; Myar v. El Paso Grocery Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 63 ......
-
Mapleton Bank v. Standrod
... ... Masury v. Bank, 93 F. 603; Kern v. Day, 45 ... La. Ann. 71, 12 So. 6; McClintock v. Central Bank, ... 120 Mo. 127, 24 S.W. 1052; Tombler v. Palestine Ice ... Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 596, 43 S.W. 896; Goyer v ... Weldberger, 71 Miss. 438, 15 So. 235; Baldwin v ... Canfield, 26 Minn ... ...
-
Menzel v. Hinton
... ... generally held to operate solely upon the remedy in the ... courts, and not to destroy the debt." Tombler v. Ice ... Co., 17 Tex.Civ.App. 596, 43 S.W. 896. To the same ... effect is Hartranft's Estate, 153 Pa. 530, 26 A. 104, 34 ... Am. St. Rep. 717; ... ...
-
Miller, Hiersche, Martens & Hayward, P.C. v. Bent Tree Nat. Bank
...58 Tex. 669, 673, 674; Hudson v. Wilkinson, 61 Tex. 606, 609; Fievel v. Zuber, 67 Tex. 275, 279, 3 S.W. 273; Tombler v. Palestine Ice Co., 17 Tex.Civ.App. 596, 43 S.W. 896, 898 (writ refused); Brinkerhoff v. Goree, 35 Tex.Civ.App. 142, 79 S.W. 592, Central Nat'l. Bank v. Latham & Co., 22 S.......