Ryan v. Goldfrank, Frank & Co.

Citations

• 58 Tex. 356
• 1 Tex. L. R. 835
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 25

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice — Attachment.—The writ of attachment and the officer’s return thereon should always, in attachment proceedings, constitute a part of the record on appeal or 'writ of error to the supreme court.</p> <p>2. Attachment — Affidavit of claimant.—When the claimant of property seized by attachment files as such claimant the statutory bond, and at the same time makes written oath that his claim is made in good faith, the absence of the jurat, which through inadvertence was not attached to the affidavit, will not vitiate the proceedings if cured in time by amendment.</p> <p>3. Case distinguished.—This case distinguished from Carter v. Carter, 36 Tex., 693.</p> <p>4. Cases approved — Intervention.—The doctrine announced in Pool v. Sandford, 52 Tex., 621, and' Rodrigues v. Trevino, 54 Tex., 198, reaffirmed. The proper remedy for one whose property is seized for the debt of another is not by intervention, but by filing a claimant’s bond under the statute or pursuing the officer who made the levy in an action of trespass.</p> <p>5. Cases apprjyed.— Sims v. Redding, 20 Tex., 388, and Arnold v. Kreissler, 23 Tex., 581, approved.</p>