Donnelly v. Elser

Citations

• 69 Tex. 282
• 6 S.W. 563
• 1887 Tex. LEXIS 819

Syllabus

<p>1. Attachment. — When the petition, for attachment and the affidavit j thereto states the same sum of money as being due from the defendant, on ¡ account consisting of many items which is attached to the petition as j an exhibit, and it is found that by correctly adding up the items, they do I not aggregate by a small amount the sum alleged to be due, the variance ■ will not vitiate the writ. \\</p> <p>2. Same. — An amendment to a petition for attachment varying the date ' on which the original petition alleged that the debt was due, will not j vitiate the attachment.</p> <p>8. Attachment Bond. — It can not be assumed as matter of law that the conjunction of two names signed as sureties to an attachment bond, as is usual in the style of partnership, represents a partnership consisting of two persons. If it did, and the partnership name was thus signed to an attachment bond, it would not necessarily vitiate the bond. In such l case the presumption would be, that the officer who took the bond satisfied himself that the member of the firm who signed the partnership name, had authority to sign it.</p> <p>4. Bond Surety. — Whenever the authority of one who signs a partnership name to an attachment bond is questioned, it should be done by plea raising an issue of fact, and not by motion.</p> <p>6. Attachment Bond. — It is hazardous and tends to complicate the rights of parties in proceedings by attachment, for the officer to receive a partnership as surety on an attachment bond. The necessity of legislation on the subject suggested.</p>