Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-12-13

thereto, but II WAS never held IN any case
that such jurisdiction extended To the
case OF = taking Of the land, nor do we
think Il would De within the meaning ard
spirit Of the constitution 10 so hold. Re-
versed and dismissed. Wilson, j
Lewis HAHN ct al. VS.. Nix 4 Story.
Appeal from Caldwell county. There is
but one question to determine IN this case;
I Can judgment rendered IN the district
court ne reached hy the process Of gar
nishment issued by the county court9
/ Mr. Wade, on attachment, SAYS, t'It the
statute does not provide that the iudg.
/ ment OF one court can be attached by gar.
nishment issuing out OF another court, IL
can not be done.N Our statute contains
no provisions expressly authorizing the
earuisament In one court "a Judgment
rendered In another, nor Is there ANYTHING
In the statutes winch would Indicate the
Intention OF the legislature 20 allow such
proceeding. Reversed aud dismissed at
cost OF appellees. Wilson. j.
Burke and Black ct al. vs.. baltimore 8
4 Fseeland. Appeal from Lamar county
This was suit TO recover damages for
the non-oellvery Of cedar poles. A bill
OF exceptions was taken to the third
charge Of tho court below, which was rs
follows; III charge you that II you nnd
from the evidence that the time for the
delivery was extended by the plaintiffs to
some definite future time, aud Won fur
Their lind that the defendant failed TO de-
liver the poles Of the place specified, and
on said future date, II any, then you win
Ind for the plaintiff as above Instructed "
Held, the evidence sustalus the iudS-
ment. The charge OF the court Is sub
stautislly correct, Affirmed. Wilson, y.
W. ID, Cleveland VS., Duggan Bros. Ap.
peal from Guadalupe county. Appellant
sued appelleos IN the county court and at
. tached Ger ain goods as the property OF
appellees, r. M Swift, Baker & Terrell,
Oppenheimer & Co. and q. w. l.. Baker,
intervenors 10 the suit, claiming 20 be
benehcisrses in mortgage upon the
goods attached, executed by Duggau
Bros. 10 secure debts due said inter.
venors, said mortgage being prior TO tn,
, levy OF said attachment. Exceptions tc
, these interyentlons by appellant wer,
overruled, his attachment proceeding
upon motion Of appellees was quashed
, and Judgment was rendered In his favor
!, against appellees for his debt and costs
I but II was also adjudged that the mort
gage lien OF interye, ors was puor anC
preference lien TO the attachment
ten upNu ehlu UuOuc ana lnht INT
debts secured by such mortgage mus
, ilrst be satisfied. The affidavit for at
IA ihment is In strict compliance with thI
statute, aud had disposed OF PROF ertl
with intent 20 defraud creditors, and W,
are OF opinion that the court erred II
quashlng the attachment upon any OF u,
grounds stated In the motion 10 quash
On a former appeal of this case we holt
that the mortgages had the right TO In
tervene In this suit aud set up their mort
+ gage lien. Subsequently, hoNever, on
S more thorough examination OF this ques
ton, we hello contrary doctrine an,
overruled our former opinion On Ia
second trial in the court below, the iudg
got being advised that our former dc
81 cision was verruled--eustained tn
intervonor's claims, adiudglng tina
their mortgage lien should take preference
over appellants attachment lien. Tn
= was error for which this court IL respon
y sible, but itis error for which, II no Other
u the cause should be reversed. On an
other trial the exceptions TO the plea
Of lntervenors should be sustained an
said pleas should be dismissed, and judg
ment should be rendered IN favor of al
g. pelant for his debt, interests and cost
with foreclosure Of his attachment leli
etc, Judgment would be here rendore
Ne II the record showed the property levie
10 upon, Reversed and remandcd. WILSON,,