Skip to main content
· 1/15/1868

Read Bros. v. Joseph L. Levy & Co.

Citations

  • 30 Tex. 738

Syllabus

<p>An attachment bond, executed under the 5th, 10th, and 26th sections of the act of 11th March, 1848, to which there is neither scroll nor seal, was rightly quashed -on motion, for want of a sufficient bond. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 143, 148, 163.)</p> <p>The first section of the common-law act, 20th January, 1840, about conveyances, reads as follows: “ The common law of England (so far as it- is not inconsistent with the constitution or the acts of congress now in force) shall, together with such acts, be the rule of decision in this Republic, and shall continue in full force until altered or repealed by Congress.” (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 978, Note 418.) The 1st section of the act of 5th February, 1840, reads as follows: “ Any instrument to which the person making the same shall affix a scroll, byway of seal, shall be adjudged and holden to be of the same force and obligation as if it were actually sealed: Provided, The person making the same shall, ih the body of the instrument, recognize such scroll as having been affixed by way of seal.” (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 997, Note 420.) Each of these acts took effect on the 16th March, 1840.</p> <p>On the 11th' of March, 1848, the legislature passed the law regulating attachments, the 26th section whereof expressly recognizes scrolls as seals. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 163.)</p> <p>On 2d February, 1858, the legislature passed the act to dispense with seals . in certain cases. It reads as follows: “No scroll or private seal shall be necessary to the validity of any contract, bond, or conveyance, whether respecting real or personal property, except such as are made by corporations ; nor shall the addition or omission of a scroll or seal in any way affect the force and effect of the same; and every contract in writing hereafter made shall be held to import a consideration as fully and in the same manner as sealed instruments have heretofore done.” (PaschUl’s Dig., Art. 5087, Note 1114.) The object of this law was to dispense with a m

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • \a party complaining about the adequacy of a transcript must specifically show how he is prejudiced by the inadequacy of the transcript before he is entitled to any relief\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lindsay

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.