Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 435
xxii, 836 p., 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1884:.] PEAR'I & Co. V. HAWKINS. 435
Opinion of the court.
The motion was sustained, and this is assigned as error.
That two or more grounds for attachment are set forth in an affidavit
is unimportant, unless from the manner of statement the real
ground is rendered uncertain, either by the manner in which the
several grounds are connected, or by the statement of two or more
grounds which are within themselves inconsistent.
In the case before us the two grounds for attachment are stated
cumulatively, and if one of them be true it matters not that the
other be untrue.
If, however, two grounds entirely inconsistent the one with the
other, be stated, it is as though no ground at all be stated, or at
least the matter is left in such state of uncertainty as is wholly inadmissible,
and insufficient for the information of the officer who is
called on to issue a writ, before judgment, by which property is
to be taken from the possession of its owner.
The Revised Statutes give several grounds for attachment not
given before their enactment, and in some instances words and
clauses have been inserted which were not before found in the statute.
That a person has secreted his property for the purpose of defrauding
his creditors was a ground for attachment under the
former, as it is under the Revised Statutes. Pasch. Dig., 142;,
R. S., 152.
In the cases of Hopkins v. Nichols, 22 Tex., 206; Culbertson v.
Cabeen, 29 Tex., 247; and Carpenter v. Pridgen, 40 Tex., 34, the
word secrete, as used in the attachment law, was held to mean "to
hide, to put it where the officer of the law will probably not be able
to find it." Mr. Webster thus defines the word: "To hide, to conceal,
to remove from the observation or the knowledge of others, as
to secrete stolen goods." We have no doubt that this is the sense in
which the word is used in the statute. The word seems to carry
with it the further idea that the thing Secreted, although not open
to the view of others, is still possessed or owned by the person by
whom secreted.
It certainly does not convey the idea that the title or right to the
thing possessed or owned is in any respect affected by the fact that
it has been hidden from the view or knowledge of other persons.
"That he has disposed of his property, in' whole or in part, with
intent to defraud his creditors," was not in the same language made
a ground for attachment under the former statute.
The nearest approach in meaning to the ground for attachment
above quoted, found in the former statute, is in that clause which
declared that an attachment might be issued when an affidavit was
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/457/: accessed May 6, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .