Case Name: F. C. Oliver v. Wm. M. Peck
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 378
Docket Number: 
Parties: F. C. Oliver v. Wm. M. Peck.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 378–379

Head Matter:
F. C. Oliver v. Wm. M. Peck.
Where, in a proceeding by garnishment, an issue is made up, and the jury found in accordance with the answer of the garnishee, the court could see no error, and the judgment was affirmed.
Appeal from- Freestone. The case was tried before Hon. John G-regg, one of the district judges.
This was a proceeding by garnishment against W. L. Moody. The question was, whether Moody was indebted to Singletary at the time of serving the garnishment. It was entirely a question of fact. The proof seems to establish that the garnishee received certain money from the sale of a negro for Singletary, but that he paid it in satisfaction of the debt of Singletary, for which the negro was bound; and upon the issue made up in the case, the jury found in accordance with the answer of the garnishee. There was, therefore, nothing for revision.
W. G. Wilson, for the appellant.
The Reporter finds no brief for the appellee.

Opinion:
Egberts, J.
—Oliver, through a suit instituted by their trustee, Moody, and by a compromise of said suit, realized $500, less the amount paid to an attorney for prosecuting the suit, and his expenses in following the negro, amounting to about $65 in all. It was the understanding of witness Boyd, who went with Oliver after the negro, that Oliver received the $500 from Saunders upon the compromise of the suit for the negro, to be applied towards the payment of the Singletary debt, which the deed of trust on the negro and the land was intended to secure. We cannot imagine upon what other ground it could have been received by Oliver. It was upon this view of the case that the court below decided, after allowing the trustee his charge for expenses, and also after allowing Oliver $65 as expenses incurred by him in securing the negro for the trustee. We do not think that Oliver can complain of the judgment, and therefore it is
Affirmed.