The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-06-21
CATURnAV


son, j.
Mary E. Forester VS.. Elizabeth
McNutt ct. al, from johnson county.
Motion to dismiss writ of error
granted.
Harry Norton VS.. state, from La
mar county. Affirmed. Accused
was sentenced for life.
J.T. Dargan VS.. p. p. Cary, from
Dallas county. Reversed and re-
manded. Hurt, j.
l.. III. Maddox VS.. state, from Mi
lam county. Motion for rehearing
overruled. Hurt, j.
Exparte George Moore, habeas cor
pus, from Hunt county. Affirmed.
Moore was convicted of murder.
Jeff Langston VS.. state, from Vic
toria county. TheH of McCrab's
COW. Affirmed.
Black ct al VS.. state, three cases.
In error from Mccullough county.
Affirmed. Forfeited bonds.
Central Texas and Northwestern
railway company VS.. w M Luck,
from Ellis county. Affirmed.
The case of w. Y. Leader VS.. city
of Austin; claim for printing was
argued by Messrs J. W. Robertson
and Alex. Jackson, jr. and submitted.
The case OF McFall, city engineer,
VS.. city of Austin for amount of re-
auction of his salary was submitted
without argument.
FitZhugh VS.. Cause ct al from
Dallas. Motion to affirm on certif-
cate and counters. Motion to file
transcripts and for certiorarl sub
mitted.
Bowling VS.. state from Washington
county. Submitted on briefs for the
state.
White VS.. state, from Lamar coun-
ty Same disposition.
Prather VS.. state, from Bosque
county. Same disposition.
Williams VS.. state from AtaScoSa
county. Submitted on briefs of both
parties.
In Cleveland 81 Cameron VS.. VIII
liamS Emotion for rehearing) Will
liams sued Neil 81 Kelly for $538. 03
and at same time obtained a writ of
garnishment upon appellants. which
was duly served, and which they an
swered under oath denying any in
debtedness to Neil 81 Kelly, and de-
nying that they had any property or
effects belonging to Neil IL Kelly.
This answer was controverted by APP
pellee in the manner provided by the
statute CIR. s., Art. 21D. Verdict and
Judgment were for appellee; but prior
to this judgment against the garni-
sheer appellee recovered a judgment
against Neil 81 Kelley in the suit in
which the garnishment. had issued.
1t is contended by appellants that
the drawing of the orders by Neil &
Kelly operated as an equitable as
signment upon the fund upon which
they were drawn, pro tants, and
that they became liable to pay said
orders to the holders to the extent of
the funds in their hands, whether
they had accepted said order or not
Held: In so far as the orders given
by Neil in settlement of his individu-
| al Indebtedness are concerned, they
did not have the effect of assigning
any further of the fund, or to remove
one centlof it beyond the reach of the
firm creditors of Neil & Kelly, Neil
having no authority to settle
his individual indebtnesS with
funds belonging to the firm, and
Cleveland & Cameron having been
duly notified by Kelly of the illegality
of the orders, and notified not to accept
or pay them. If they have seen proper
to disregard this timely warning, and
| to pay or make themselves liable to
pay these orders, it is their own af.
| fair, and they must abide the conse,
| quence. They cannot be heard tC
complain of such liability or loss as
against firm creditor.
AS to the question of excluding the
debt of John Carson, for which debt
appellants say they had been pre-
viously garnisheed, and for the pay
ment of which they are responsible
it is further held that if the orders
given by Neil g. Kelly perated as at
assignment of the fund pro touJs, as
| appellants contend, which is the cor
rect rule, then these orders must take
precedence of Carson's debt, and must
! be fully satisfied before any portion
of the fund can be appropriated 10y
| Carson's attachment. If appellant:
have suffered Carson to obtaiI
against them judgment for hi:
debt, they knowing and being able tt
prove that the funds in their hands
had been assigned to other creditor.
of Neil & Kelly, they cannot set III
| such Judgment in bar Of such othe
creditors claims.
Motion for rehearing is overruled
Wilson, j.
Court of Commissioners of Appeals
r. 5. Walker, Presiding Judge; A. T. Watt
and w. s. Delaney, Associates
MONDAY.
Opinions were rendered by thi
court yesterday, subject to adoption
by the supreme court, to become final
in the following cases:
r. H. West VS.. r. E. Burk from
Dallas county. Reversed and re