The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-05-24

AN ASSIGNMENT ATTACKED
IMPORTANT CASE AT SHERMAN.
The Mosely Brothers Transfer Held not
UnassSilably Good, and the Attach
ments Made Thereafter to be
Tested on Their Merits.

SHERMAN, May 28.-[Special. THE
argument in the Doyle VS.. Douglas
case was the most elaborate on each
side that has been heard In the court
house of Grayson county. TIE argu-
ment on the demurrers was presented
first by Mr.. Levy, OF Scott 81 Levy, of
Galveston, in manner that has SOL
dom been equaled.
lie was followed bv II 0. Head, of
sherman, who had Thoroughly digested
the case, and brought out the strong
points IN favor of the assignment into
bold relief
The argument of Mr.. Henry, of Dallas,
was from an entirely different stand
point from that which occupied the at
tention OF the others in the case. His
argument was an ingenious effort to
satisfy the court that the assignment, If
not valid under the act Of 1879, was still
good common law assignment.
Capt. T.. j. Brown, of Brown IL Gunter,
| sherman, closed the argument of the
defense and followed the same line of
argument as laid down by Mr.. Levy in
tAe opening, with the exception of an
! sWeri0g Judge Henry on the PROPOSE
ton as 10 its being o valid assignment
under the common law. In showing
what he considered the righteousness
OF having an assignment tested by the
common Law rules aud another by the
rules OF the act OF 1879, the gentleman
! appeared for while not to realize that
he was addressing court and INDUCED
in flights OF oratary that characterize
him before jury.
TEE POINTS IN THE CASE
/ that IgpmarV %
ment of writing beginning:
ave, MOsely Bros, a mercantile firm
composed OF w. c., s. p, r, r. and
f. =. Mosely, doing business
in DenisOn and Mexia, Texas,
in consideration of 81, etc, do transfer
set over and assign unto w. +, DOYLE
all OUR property" etc.
Then followed that the assignment
was made in trust TO Doyle IN cOnse-
| quence OF their inability TO pay THEIR
debts and for him to convert the prop.
erty into money and apply the pro-
ceeds to the payment OF OUR SAID in
| debtedness, and was signed and ac-
| knoWledged by only two of the part
ners, who acknowledge that they signed
1t Tor themselves and Tor Moss,y Bros.
The points relied on were that it was
/ the firm Of MOsely Bros, who made th 9
assignment and was invalid and passed
no title, because il was only signed by
| two of the firm.
Second-It WAS partial assignment,
as II only conveyed the property of the
| firm aud not OF the Individual members;
that if it did convey tho property OF the
members it only conveyed that Of the
signing partners, and not the property
OF the nOn-signing.
To overcome this the plaintiffs alleges
that the individual members had no
| property OF their own and
ihe hrm owned no real
estate; also that the non-signing
partners had ratified the act of the part
ners making the assignment. This
morning the judge gave his opinion,
overruling the demurrers and sustain
ing the exception TO plaintiffs allega-
ton That the non-signing partners rati-
lled the acts OF tho others, because it
was not alleged that they ratified it be-
fore the levy Of the attachments.
Inc case, on its merits, was continued.