Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-12-07
sUPEEAEtoURr.
SynOpses Of Decisions Rendered at the Pres
en-. Tyler Sitting.
-I,,


en- Tyler Sitting.
Correspondence of the Gazette
TYLER, TEX., Dee. 5.-John C,
Brown, receiver, VS.. Charles Warner:
from Smith. In 1874 appellee made a
Contract with the Texas and Pacific rail-
Dad to the effect that the former would
grade. construct and furni. h ties for n
certain switch. and that the railway
would furnish the iron and permanently
maintain same, said switch to be- used bg
| appellee for shipping purposes. In 1857
/ The receivers of the Texas and Pacific
| railway removed said switch and ceased
! 20 maintain same. This suit was brought
against the receivers for damages YER
! diet for apI el!ee. Held: A receiver as
general rule, is not the agent of the
court that appoints him with authority
/ TO take the possession and control of
/ 2ropertv-the subject matter of litira-
| tion-and is not the representative of its
| owner for the fullillmsnt of the coutr eta
of the latter, except i'll cases III which he
has made the contract his own, some Act
OF adoption. ll5 Mass. The receiver
. OF the property Of u railroad is no more
the representative of the company than
the receiver CT the property of natural
person IS the representative of such per-
son. Appellee's remedy is against the
railway company. Reversed and re-
minded. Gaines, j.
Carter Bros. y Co. VS.. Bush; from
Hunt. O'Neal & Evans made all assign
meDt with certain preferred creditors,
with the appellee as assignee Appel
lants, who were not preferred creditors
under the assignment, brought SUIT on
claim held by them and garnishpeG ap-
pe''ee, who answered, denying in6ebt-
edness TO O'Neal & Evans, and alleging
that under the assignment he held prom
erty and accounts TO the amount of So,
600 in trust for the preferred creditors.
Appellan Is contested the answer, sller-
ing that The property in the hands of the |
assignee WIS sufficient 10 pay the pre- |
ferred claims together with their own. |
and prayed that the cause in garuish- |
ment be continued until the trus, should |
be fully administered and that the gar !
nshee should then be required as 10 any
surplus that might remain. On trial the
court held that the assets were not more
shan sufficient TO pay the preferred
claims. Held: In view of the large
amount of assets i'll the hands of the
assignee and the uncertainty attending
an attempt TO ascertain their value, |
- u pOst iUIlltS INIT q surplus or |
property may remain after satisfying the
secured debts. AMI the appellants should
not have been precluded of their right to
reach such surplus, should II actually
exist after administration of the trust.
that appellants did not
object 10 going into the trial at the time.
the case should have been delayed until
the secured Chains had been paid, in
order TO see whether or not a surplus re-
manned. Reversed and rsr.ndsd
Gaines, J.
Goodbar, White & Co. ct al. vs.. CITY
national bank; from Hopkins. Appellee
brought this action against 4. B. Will
innson and attached his stock of goods
md merchandise. Subsequently appel
ants also brought suit and attached the
FOODS subject appsllee's levy. After.
Faro's appellants interviewed in this sui,
md claimed that the debt and attach
nent of appellee were fraudulent ana
Invalid. l.. Appellants claiming lien by
levied subsequently, to the {