Wilson v. Dearborn
Decision Date | 20 February 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 6581.) |
Citation | 174 S.W. 296 |
Parties | WILSON v. DEARBORN, Sheriff. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
E. P. Anderson, of Waxahachie, for relator. J. L. Gammon, of Waxahachie, for respondent.
On February 2, 1915, J. B. Wilson presented to this court an application for the writ of mandamus commanding H. B. Dearborn, sheriff of Ellis county, Tex., to levy two executions for costs issued by this court in causes Nos. 6018 and 6706, both entitled J. L. Holveck et al. v. George Holveck et al., decided by this court, alleging: That said executions had been placed in said sheriff's hands, with directions to levy the same on certain land, which land was pointed out by a description in writing, showing the metes and bounds thereof. That said sheriff had failed and refused to make said levy, for the reason that the records showed the title to the land to be in another than the defendants in execution, and demanded an indemnity bond.
On said February 2, 1915, this court caused an order to be issued commanding the said H. B. Dearborn, sheriff as aforesaid, to appear before this court on February 12, 1915, and show cause why he had not levied said two executions, and on said day the said Dearborn did appear in obedience to said command and made answer in part as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Henry S. Miller Co. v. Evans
...though the levy might involve litigation. For a levy of execution on Land will not subject the Sheriff to a suit for damages. Wilson v. dearborn, 174 S.W. 296 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1915, no writ). (Emphasis added by this Court.) As stated in Harston v. Langston, 292 S.W. 648, 650 (Tex.Civ.A......
-
Evans v. Henry S. Miller Company, 4769
...out to levy on,' and it is his duty to levy irrespective of 'whether the land was owned and possessed by another.' Wilson v. Dearborn, Tex.Civ.App., 174 S.W. 296. Where defendant in judgment asserts a homestead claim, the sheriff is said to be 'not a tribunal to determine' the facts, and hi......
-
Fant Mill. Co. v. May
... ... Rehearing Denied June 8, 1951 ... Gillespie & Gillespie, Sherman, for appellant ... Will R. Wilson", Jr., Dist. Atty., Harold W. McCracken, Rufus N. McKnight, Jr., and Billy B. Joiner, Asst. Dist. Attys., all of Dallas, for appellees ... \xC2" ... v. Fitzgerald, 11 Tex. 417; for the reason that he will not thereby be subjected to a suit for damages. Wilson v ... Page 449 ... Dearborn, Tex.Civ.App., 174 S.W. 296. '* * * With respect to chattels, however, the law has always recognized that the officer should be conceded the right ... ...
-
Wilson v. Dearborn
...of Waxahachie, for respondents. RAINEY, C. J. This is a motion for rehearing of an application for a writ of mandamus in cause No. 6581, 174 S. W. 296, which application was refused at the last term of this court. This motion was filed after the period fixed for filing of motions for rehear......