Fox & Bro. v. Willis & Bro.

Citations

• 60 Tex. 373
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 341

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence.—In a suit between parties, which involved the good faith in a matter connected with said suit by a third party, but who was not a party to the record, the declarations of such third party to another, neither party to the suit being present, are hearsay, and not admissible in evidence. Following Carleton v. Baldwin, 27 Tex., 572, and other cases cited.</p> <p>2. Stoppage in transitu.—A charge of the court that the right of stoppage in transitu of goods sold existed in the seller, not only in the event of the insolvency of the vendee, but for other adequate cause, without explaining the meaning applied by the court to the words other adequate cause,” is error.</p> <p>3. Stoppage in transitu.— If the seller of goods attach them in transitu for his debt his remedy of stoppage in transitu is thereby destroyed. Following Wait’s Actions and Defenses, vol. 5, pp. 616, 617; Ferguson v. Herring, 49 Tex., 129, and other Texas cases.</p> <p>4, Same.—But while this is true, yet if the seller, through want of knowledge of the facts and means of knowledge attached, believed the right of stoppage in transitu was lost, and on learning his error immediately dismisses his attachment, he may still exercise his right of stoppage in transitu, if there has been no actual or constructive delivery of the goods at their place of destination.</p>