David Wallace & Co. v. Bogel & Bro.

Citations

• 62 Tex. 636
• 1884 Tex. LEXIS 303

Syllabus

<p>1. Statement op facts — Judgment — Conclusiveness of as to facts.— While recitals in a judgment of conclusions of facts deduced from the evidence,ordinarily will not supply the place of a statement of facts, yet where the recital is to the effect that the court found against the defendants upon a specific issue, wherein they claimed to be the owners of certain merchandise, such recital should be taken as concluding that issue.</p> <p>2. Same — Evidence.— The doctrine declared in Cochran v. Kellum, 4 Tex., 120; Bond v. Mallow, 17 Tex., 636, and other cases, that in the absence of a statement of facts every legal intendment is in favor of the correctness of the-judgment, and that in such case it will be presumed that the evidence was sufficient to authorize the finding, reaffirmed.</p> <p>3. Same.— The principle that a fact not alleged, though proved, cannot form the basis of a judgment, reaffirmed. Following Chrisman v. Miller, 15 Tex., 161, and other cases.</p> <p>4. Attachment —Bankruptcy.—Where plaintiffs had their attachment levied on property of a firm which was claimed by defendants, the defense that four months thereafter the firm was adjudged bankrupt, which dissolved the attachment proceedings, can only be set up by their assignee in bankruptcy.</p> <p>5. Same.— Where the power of the state court over the attached property of one afterwards declared a bankrupt is subject to be impeached, it cannot be done except upon an intervention by the assignee in bankruptcy, stating the facts and making the proof necessary to terminate the jurisdiction,</p>