The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-06-09
[,r,I COURT DECISIONS.
I, oo,uious Handed Down
r., tbe Latest Sitting
I,Ip BY THE SUPREME COURT
can Not Legally Issuc
n-.wer of nm Accepted
"a before 1t Falls Due.

= ~4' ar TIMBER COMPANY EFT
y THE ATLANTA BANK Ell 81. Al;
0.,rt suit. from Class county, ruin
E+~Ailrmed in part ana REVERSED
,,cated In part -
~ ,ued out writ of attachment
~. rndare Lumber company, as
wa the Bemis Lumber company
..,,or, Of three bills of exchange Lot
=. and attached lot CT lumber
sropsrty of the drawer.
kildare Lumber company repievined
.,.,,v and W. d. Ward, one Of the
!. IN error, became surety On Its
bond.
.,lou 10 Quash the attachment WIS
"a and the trial resulted in a judy
n The plaintiff against both defend
Nd against the suretics on the re-
u an attachment be lawfully issued
the drawer OF an accepted draft
falls due? We are OF the opinion
Il opest,on should be answered in
rtitiye. ,
WIT OF attachment was unknown to
mon law, except by the custom of
d and, with us, The nature of the
|, upcn which the remedy is allowed
Ind by statute. The remedy can
extended TO other eases. Under our
10 attachment can lawfully issue,
h an action for debt, when the de-
4 unliquidatod or contingent. ga
is; Y Texas. co. The reason is.
lie plaintiff can not properly make
b the fact Of indebtedness and its
i In such cases.
liability OF the drawer Of an accepted
conditional only. He engaged to
tie acceptor does not and IL due
IL b. used
IL ls6, Revised Statutes. provides
b attachment may issue although
lsiln's debt or demand be not GIe."
IBIS II is argued that there need not
uksting debt. We can not agree 10
III many causes OF action arising
breach OF contract the action OF
f@ld not lie at common law. and
fe the more comprehensive term
3D. was probably inserted in the
su TO embrace contract liabilities
wld only be prosecuted at common
be action of assumsit. To give
n demand" any other construction
ne sight OF that other provision OF
Eale which prescrlbes as one of the
'hltes Of an attachment that an af-
isil be made Stating that tho de-
b Justly Indebted to the plaintiff
mount Of the demand.
rscles Sl2. 1903 and 1904. Revised
are relied upon as authorizing
'rautnt in this case.
esnon law the liabilities of the &C.
ne drawer. and the indorser of 4
nathge and of the maker and in
promisory note werc several
al. and hence. while they milht
snne same time. they could rot
efsAagainst in the same suit. The
me statutes noted above was
xa me technical rule of the COM
ahd TO enable he holder OF me-
paper TO sue all parties liable
In one suit.
.m the motion to quash the at.
BY In This case was acted unon tho
. ,, MED a supplemental petition.
insisted here that their picsdings
whole, show that the bills in
aceepted for the accommodation
sser' In determining whether at
OHe VIII issued the plain.lns had
%use OF action as would e,uorort
SH'uent' we may look al all their
lOl Texas. $50. But. looking
-" s' case made by plaintiffs retl-
supplemental petition, 1t can
tp Iaia mat the facts alleged show
~ ~ we're accepted for the accom-
|mw me drawer But If IT be con-
- rue allegations are sufficient m
III recommendation acceptance. the ,e-
~. uot De changed. The rights Of
n" or other holder of The paper
NM, saahsed In some respects, hut
(r,n, ' o. the drawer still r,m1ing
\ n. ne Is only liable 10 the holder
n nr nv aceeptor should fail 10 raw.
nitp.I'y can not be attached for
bise,It liability. 1t will be noted
! 'he case OF an accepted bili
F,,a ase where e bill is drawn ,bich
Ettsr oi has no right TO drawer. In
! Inm. .ass oi cases the drawer may
Immediately liable. ''
ourb, oh,' upon the motion to that
i. ~ 70 nave been dissolved
asfsr,inns Tor the attachment is
|,Dt 1--we II states that the nj
J. nn, NV applied for is not sued out
ke.Sssv.se OF injuring or HARVESTING
to lniwro i. should have denied the
eg Of LIT, ,ho Or harass the defendants
u a. sn, The dictum TO the con-
| nj 1, proposition contained in 70
Ii. ,bis Nv, the law as applied I'm n
tdebt Where the defendants arc
he md, ,nough 1t may be correct
Ii, a. Isl Is against two or more de-
la me NE drafts matured r,o,,,,,.
" thew petition. alleging hat tnc,.
'in,irs a wire not paid al maturity
ttt sys,n m.fe therefore entitled 10
| Is ips,s,a, roth defendants
nc s asted that, under tho ,or,,. =,
ny repasr ended Statutes. Judgment was
sIevy Inuefed against the s,,ret 49, WIS nn
lhe co upha, Notwithstanding ,be i, o o..
nea, =, erred in not gnasb linz nv ~.
Is orirInan,e iirst paragraph Of t,,is
. Of Is5a article lS2 OF tho Revised
tisd by ~ The second paraernnh
Before tho amendment passed n.
a Vas 'Ae amendment. when an at.
Z vas imm,osaseeously dissolved, the
',sudsnt, and ,uately surrendered TO
batter w.s sne plaintiffs appeal. az
|. The p,rrn. without any beneficial
'aea. was ~ and scope of this
he plaint,s correct this evil. ard
i correction an efflcacious remedy
'~.at was no, ,u me error. The
v an sSrs mas abused the p recars 20 20
y hls oos s'n which has besn OBJ oi
essny ~ against the Ki,aar