37 S.W.2d 776 | Tex. App. | 1931
The facts of this case are not materially different from those of Patty-Joiner Eubank Co. v. Cummins (Tex.Civ.App.)
It may be, as argued by appellant, that the Texas Assignment Law (title 12, R.S. 1925) is not an "insolvent law" in the sense the Arkansas statute was, but it cannot be doubted, we think, that the effect of holding it to have been operative in the insolvent debtor's (Beasley's) favor would have been to have given him "choice between the relief provided by the Bankruptcy Act and that specified" in the Texas statute, a thing the federal Supreme Court said should not be done; and, further, would be to "complement the Bankruptcy Act or to provide additional or auxiliary regulations," which that court held a state could not do.
As we view the matter, giving effect, as he was bound to, to the ruling in the Pinkus *777 Case, the trial court could not have held otherwise than he did, and this court, also bound as it is to respect that ruling, cannot do otherwise than affirm the judgment.