Farrar v. Talley & Hester

Citations

• 68 Tex. 349
• 4 S.W. 558
• 1887 Tex. LEXIS 694

Syllabus

<p>1. Attachment.—When process of attachment; is obtained by one who has no just claims against the owner whose property is seized, and for the purpose of gaining thereby an illegal advantage in the collection of his pretended debt, the act is not only wrongful but malicious, and though the property seized be returned to the owner uninjured and the attachment suit dismissed, at least nominal damages may be recovered for the wrong.</p> <p>2. Same.—If, under attachment thus wrongfully obtained, the property seized ‘ is not, on the dismissal of the suit, returned to the owner, but is impaired in value or lost to the true owner, he may recover in addition not only an amount that will reimburse him for the loss sustained, but if the attachment was without probable cause, exemplary damages.</p> <p>3. Principal and Agent, Estoppel.—The fact that one has on a former occasion paid drafts drawn on him by another, can not of itself render him liable for purchases made by such other person as his agent, nor can it estop him from denying that an agency ever existed.</p>