J. H. Johnson & Co. v. Heidenheimer

Citations

• 65 Tex. 263
• 1886 Tex. LEXIS 651

Syllabus

<p>1. Fraudulent attachment suits—Junior attaching creditors—Intervention— A fraudulent diverson of a debtor’s property may be as effectively accomplished by a collusive suit as by a direct transfer; and to prevent the illegal result of such a suit between an attaching creditor and the debtor, a junior attaching creditor may intervene in the case and protect his interest in the attached property, by showing that the plaintiff’s demand is fictitious. (Citing Nenny v. Schulter, 62 Tex. 328.)</p> <p>2. Same—Attachment lien—Pleading—An attachment secures to the creditor such a lien as entitles him in equity to have all the obstructions to its fair enjoyment removed, and the creditor having a lien upon the property which he seeks to disencumber, need not aver the insolvency of the debtor.</p> <p>3. Case distinguished — This case distinguished from the case of Grabbenheimer v. Rindskoff, 5 Tex. Law Rev. 263.</p>