Williams v. Wright
| Decision Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Parties | WESLEY A. WILLIAMS v. MCQUINNEY H. WRIGHT. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
In this case the court recognize the equitable remedy of interpleader as applicable to our system, notwithstanding that, because of our practice of intervention, the party might, perhaps, protect himself by giving notice of the pendency of the suit to the adverse claimant or claimants.
An objection that an answer in the nature of a bill of interpleader, fails to bring the money into court or offer to do so,1 cannot be taken on general demurrer.
Whether the present was a proper case for an interpleader, it is not necessary positively to decide. It appeared by the answer that the right of the plaintiff had been contested, and was in litigation in a suit previously instituted, to which all the parties in interest were made parties, in another county. This made it unnecessary that the adverse claimants should interplead in this suit, as the right must be determined in that.
It would seem that where the cause of action or ground of defense is in its general nature sufficient, a general demurrer will not lie; and that in such cases, the omission of particular allegations must be specially assigned, in order that the proper amendment, if correspondent with the fact, may be made.
Error from Collin. Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford.
Suit by McQuinney H. Wright against W. A. Williams, commenced February 7th, 1857, on a promissory note of said Williams for $2,000, dated July 27th 1855, payable on or before the first day of January, 1857, to Mary Standifer or bearer, reciting that it was given in part payment for a tract of land that day purchased from the said Mary; indorsed on the back “pay to bearer, this 10th of November, 1855,” signed M. W. Mathews; and assignment to M. H. Wright, February 14, 1856, by D. J. Thomas and W. B. Thomas. Plaintiff alleged that he became the owner of said note, before due, giving a valuable consideration therefor. He also alleged the facts, and prayed an enforcement of the vendor's lien.
The defendant filed two pleas, one to the effect that he admitted the execution of the note sued on; but pleaded in bar the pendency of a prior suit in the district court of Kaufman county, commenced on the ____ day of ____ A. D. 1856, by one B. M. Musgrove against the said Mary Standifer, in which said Mary filed an answer in the nature of a cross-action, a certified copy of which was filed as part of this defendant's answer; that this defendant and said Wright, the plaintiff, have been duly served with process in said cross-action; prayer for protection, and that the suit be dismissed. Affidavit of the truth of the plea.
Defendant filed another plea, in case his first was held insufficient, to the effect that he admitted his liability upon the note sued on, but that in March, 1856, said Mary Standifer published a notice, warning all persons not to purchase or receive said note, and gave special notice to this defendant not to pay the same, on the ground that it had been obtained from her by M. W. Mathews by fraud; and to the end that defendant might be protected, he asked that the said Mary Standifer, who resided in the county of Kaufman, be made a defendant in this suit, and that she be required to assert her claims to said note if any she had.
The answer of Mary Standifer in the Kaufman county suit, purported to be an answer in a suit commenced by B. M. Musgrove against her, on her promissory note; it alleged that said note was given in part payment for lands in Kaufman county, purchased by said Mary from said Mathews, detailing the particulars, in which she charged said Mathews, one Boydston and one Hanna with confederating to defraud her; that she gave, beside the note sued on, a note payable to said Mathews by her for $150, payable January 1st, 1857, and a note executed by Wesley A. Williams, payable to said defendant, due January 1st, 1857, for two thousand dollars; that said Mathews, for the purpose of further defrauding this defendant, and carrying out his fraudulent designs, confederated with William B. Thomas and Daniel J. Thomas, who reside in the county of Hunt, and who are prayed to be made parties to this suit, merchants, trading under the style of Thomas & Bro., and made the fraudulent transfer of said note (that is, the note sued on in the Kaufman county suit), that is indorsed upon the back of said note sued on, after the same became due, antedating the same in order that the defense here relied upon could not be made available, without any consideration therefor; and that the said Thomas & Bro. had full notice of the facts and allegations hereinbefore set forth, before they received said note, and that they received the same, after it became due, and that the said Thomas & Bro. transferred and delivered said note to the said plaintiff after the same became due, without any consideration, and that plaintiff had full notice of the facts herein stated. The defendant would further show that the note for two thousand dollars upon Williams was transferred by said Mathews to said Thomas & Bro., and by said Thomas & Bro. to one McQuinney Wright, who also resides in the county of Hunt, some time since the first of January, 1856 (perhaps 1857 intended), the precise time not known, under like circumstances, for a like purpose, and with a like design; and that each of the said Thomas & Bro. had notice of the facts and allegations hereinbefore stated; that said Mathews is wholly insolvent; that defendant fears said Williams, who resides in Collin county, and who is prayed to be made a party defendant to this suit, may and will pay to the said McQuinney Wright the said sum of two thousand dollars, and thereby this defendant be deprived of her just rights; prayer that this answer be taken as a cross-bill, and that said Mathews, Thomas & Bro., Wright and Williams be cited, that said sale be set aside for fraud, that the said notes be redelivered to this defendant, and if this cannot be done, then give her such reduction upon the said notes as the facts may warrant; for damages against Mathews, and for general relief. Affidavit to the truth of the facts stated.
The copy of the citation served upon defendant Williams in the Kaufman...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez
...v. Rockwall County, 120 Tex. 441, 35 S.W.2d 690, 693 (1931); Nixon v. Malone, 100 Tex. 250, 98 S.W. 380, 385 (1906); Williams v. Wright, 20 Tex. 499, 502-03 (Tex.1857). 17. U.S. v. Ray Thomas Gravel Co., 380 S.W.2d 576, 581 (Tex.1964); Davis, 354 S.W.2d at 930-31; Greer v. Franklin Life Ins......
-
Gambrell v. Tatum
... ... From judgment overruling defendants' plea of privilege defendants appeal. Affirmed ... Dickson & Newton, of Seymour, and Williams & Martin, of Plainview, for appellants ... Culton & Taylor and Jordan & Zimmermann, all of Tulia, for appellee ... Woolley v. Canyon, etc., 159 S. W. 403 (6); Johnston v. Luling, 24 S. W. 996; Templeman v. Gresham, 61 Tex. 50; Williams v. Wright, 20 Tex. 499. The United States Supreme Court held mere nominal defendants, who were citizens of the state where the suit was instituted, and who had ... ...
-
Murph v. Foxworth
...v. Greene (Tex.Civ.App.) 207 S.W. 964; 20 Texas Jurisprudence, § 83, p. 123; Chambers v. Wyatt (Tex.Civ.App.) 151 S.W. 864; Williams v. Wright, 20 Tex. 499, 500. In applying the principles declared in these cases to the one at bar, it should be noted here that both the pleading and proof an......
-
Trapp v. Lampton
...as is attempted to be done here. Moor v. Moor, Tex.Civ.App., 255 S.W. 231; Davis v. Burkholder, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S. W. 1101; Williams v. Wright, 20 Tex. 499, 500; Moore v. Cross, Tex.Civ.App., 26 S. W. Furthermore, the record as a whole abundantly reflects that the defendant has been fully......