City National Bank v. J. M. Cupp & Co.

Citations

• 59 Tex. 268
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 149

Syllabus

<p>I. Attachment bond.— The individual stockholder in an incorporated company may be a surety on an attachment bond for the company; were it otherwise the objection could not be made available on a motion to quash.</p> <p>2 Levy, and sheriff’s return. — The sheriff's return on a writ of attachment, which recited that the writ was levied on land designated by the return which was “pointed out- as the property of J. M. Cupp & Co. (the defendants in attachment) by Frank Ball, ” is sufficient, whether Ball was a party to the proceeding in attachment or not. The return was equivalent to a statement that the officer levied on the land as the property of the defendant.</p> <p>3. Case discussed.— Meuley v. Zeigler, 23 Tex., 88, discussed and distinguished.</p> <p>4. Attachment — Return of writ.— A writ of attachment levied, and return indorsed February 12, 1882, but not really filed in the proper clerk’s office until January 2, 1883, after a term of the court had passed, was not on account of the delay vitiated as to the attaching creditor. The lien acquired by the levy was not Tost, there being no intervening rights.</p>