Case ID: ala_125/html/0700-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Haralson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Schloss & Pratel v. Schloss.
    Appeal from Barbour Circuit Court.
    Tried before the Hon. A. A. Evans.
    G. L. Comer, A. H. Merrill and P. B. McKenzie, for appellants.
    S. H. Dent, Jr., for appellee.
    On December 29th, 1896, appellants sued out an attachment in the circuit court of Barbour county, Alabama, at Eufaula, against J. Oppenheimer. Said attachment was duly levied on said December 29th, 1896, by the sheriff of Barbour county on certain goods, wares and merchandise as the property of said Oppenheimer, the' defendant in said attachment suit. After said attach-meat was so levied, II. Scliloss, the appellee, made claim to the property levied on, as required by Liav. Said claimant claimed the property levied on under a deed of assignment executed to, him by said Oppenheimer, the defendant in attachment. Said Oppenheimer was wholly insolvent at the time.
    On the trial of the issue formed in the claim suit, judgment was rendered in favor of the claimant, from which the plaintiffs appeal.
    The question presented on this appeal — 'the alleged invalidity of the same deed of assignment, on substantially the same evidence — was presented and decided adversely to the appellants in the case of Inman v, Schloss, 122 461, and on the authority of that case,
    the judgment of the court below is affirmed.
   Opinion by

Haralson, J.