Worthington v. Whitefield
142 S.W. 34
Tex. App.
1911
Check Treatment

*1 (Tex:. REPORTER 142 SOUTHWESTERN 34 manded as to B. Worthington. firmed. ty; S. J. Error, the the tiff, peal 3.Appeal pellee. 2.Homestead Dec. trust was other of a was closure; is sufficient consideration to homestead, held, that under the 175.*] The matter stands as and 1.PRINCIPAL AND upon and Worthington ing it. any creditors cannot be heard to attack the sale. sold the chattel to MeGannon in satisfaction perhaps, ferent with the consent and of the of the grantor Questions to clude the stances, Spaulding proof set sion, attend to the (Court tion —Affirmance. Rigim^-Questions [Ed. NITY to [Ed. Note.—For Appeal [Ed. Note.—For other Action Hawkins & SPEER, The protect Smedley motion foreclosure, and In an WORTHINGTON v. WHITEFIELD. It Where aside the Surety, A attorney’s fees, affirmed in all improper for the court to direct a fore- show Dig. 115.*] deed of defendant and he is a note respects of fraud and collusion between Note.—For Dec. surety’s payment debt, cannot for power, of Civil Oct. case assignments would have MeGannon the the from by § action where foreclosure of deed of judgment the Surety become sought upon property and Error Isaacks, Judge. of reason of J. a Dig. and Cent. which he had the 14, question providing that, arises when the judgment B. Whitefield agent trust, plaintiff and B. F. Whitefield executed of the surety. Allen, to stand sale was not one to whom the and under his direct District sale, and, [1] in Nov. From Appeals and On (§ 115*) Caldwell appeals. § 1175.*] 1911. On F. Dig. —Consideration. other other the every a moment be claimed with unimportant, On things Rehearing. SURETY selected and permit in could maintain a suit to should be affirmed. 18, 1911.) executed intrusted it. But a dif- for for of error- being that, appellate render approval a for §§ August 4, 1909, for (§ 1175*) making affirmed. though* Court, cases, cases, of Texas. Ft. Worth. was of his respect judgment 505-509; —Enforcement Jury. cases, appellant. & save payment plaintiff in the for the Modified and af- under the circum- Rehearing, Whitaker, (§ by reversed and judgment against support recovery by the absence of see see principal’s Midland Coun- judgment the right court will the Spaulding 175*) against of the trustee to to the First —Determina sale is made raising satisfied see claimed as a and we con- the Homestead, appellant promising specifically the Appeal evidence jury. was foreclosure Dec. sale, of interest for —INDEM a to do. Principal principal Graham and lived with supervi- Spauld- the bank note. grantor for on plain- Dig. B. A.B. in all other other upon with npte merely had and ap- ey ap- re- of A. it " the doctrine announced in Faires v. by appellee principle can lot his tion. action is plaintiff ent case they and surety foreclosure is homestead. gust 4, tional Bank. This contention is based line of the same he had conducted ness in a storehouse on lot to the First National Bank of the constitutional upon upon allow interest at the rate annum, in 88 Tex. 528, ington, setting up dence lots when judgment Upland, ant has show that ever since about of ing things, which a to structed appeal. The first the scribed This attorney’s promissory field terest and day Worthington Whitefield trust on certain controversy There are but [2] The next demand the him the 1 principal’s further payment by ; to the effect that a attorney’s include as a in suit the the appellee The that he was March, 19P8; evidence, mortgage business; pleaded transaction general for in as when the block 19 included 1909, for appealed. 428, in for his based foreclosure was the implied promise town. surety are excessive for the reason theory was Whitefield his deed of and business lot was welt within judgment, and a will be affirmed. the house was fee, together the combined value of the constituted a sufficient Upton county, note for legal the that he had been forced to attorney’s an Appellant jury in have no homestead. The trial court 31 S. W. he was National debt is entitled to recover upon did not secured the by that lot exempt fee recovered for which the merchandise and land attorney’s simple debt, principal, The this the court his question two lien on that he was married on the note Other appellee lands, including interest to recovery of executed a similar note his business the limitation. conducting and is the return a verdict $2,300, family defendant, questions therefore, subrogation. suit, application that above living trust, that pay reason 1, testified that on Au 190, 1, fees. to written surety testimony Bank subsequent payment all the sought, with a foreclosure in in of in fee presented to from the date erred in to the First Na- same and was to secure he had no other should have been built, appellant an providing the 639, block the on facts, and 10 in first repay, and not against block a that of of On attorney’s such business who raised on the at In Midland for the per interest, obligation among the town property block judgment by verdict the interest 28 L. R. was 10 to the which was Midland mentioned. 19, against that this considera- tended the lot and Cockerell, appellee’s the same a deed of directing But 19; the cent, per has engaged is defend- exempt for the Worth- as White- for 13 place alleg- state other busi mon- pres- upon resi cent, man that paid only that that this and and and pay per his fee de- in- in- A. to in of of of of in to a Dig. Rep’r Key topic Dig. No. Series & indexes sea same and section NUMBERin Am. * Forother cases Dec. & *2 Tes.) PRIDDY O’NEAL v. 35 it, tbe a 4. Trial evidence issue. 1. value of fendant hearing he asks us to' Cent. tbe foreclosure on this will al court various ant, ponement diligence the 2. New the defendant to make New Trial ered mony true, new trial ined Dec. Dig. § 191.*] of foreclosure hearing. 3. favor of appellant which the down for (Court charge, drill and only cumulative. drill Cent. therefore appellant judgment etc., Evidence — Facts. Evidence — [Ed. Evidence —Cumulative [Ed. [Ed. [Ed. Tbe Affirmed [3] foreclosure New Trial raised tbe issue make Upland, business homestead ground Where Where In an In an action had not who went be remanded was owned in evidence, is Dig. part. did Appellee Dig. Dig. ¿ertain as to Note.—For Note.—For Note.—For Note.—For of Civil judgment that PRIDDY reasons those not controversy plaintiff for over Trial that such the not entitle as to entitle appellee, an affidavit undoubtedly, (§ will stand or for As this for render as § §§ trial §§ action in a case a of against if at the time defendant took cause 150.*] Diligence. property was erroneous Sufficiency 191*) given 218-220, the value of newly 210-214; continuance, part, to this admissions, an affidavit newly lot 1 admissions to trial newly showing as to lot introduced Dec. On has render (§ Appeals (§ (§ a number had by plaintiff. is upon five — the other had been reversed 102*) Newly other other v. et al. other 150*) 104*) Newly for another Rehearing. and it his consent to the and reversed upon was the discovered was that sucb lot witness would therefore reversed filed a motion in him to Instructions—Assuming 16, 1911.) which the discovered evidence. in all discovered been years, replevied, lot, 228; without that he heard judgment him to a new a judgment block Dec. that defendant’s in to of — eases, see New — cases, cases, cases, —Newlt of replevin bond, remanded, we will lot, and tbe cause was not a 1, is evidence Evidence. and otherwise did not oe Texas. assuming postponed, things say pending in the tri- of the Dec. appellant. a new Dig. replevin on the and had O’NEAL. so ordered. only owned the block 19. 19, Showing. witness refused seeking see New times, see New see trial on that property evidence. newly tbe judgment and remand- Dig. in § 102.*] in favor of Discovered Discovered in favor of Discovered constituted issue affirmed ground trial, Trial, Ft. Worth. show such testify to as to in the town least of been that bond, original trial on § but plaintiff defend- a discov- by taking, which defendants where 104.*] toas Trial, Trial, Trial, testi- being post- upon drill, Dec. Tlie was the the the the de- for for set in of a bill of cannot be considered on 5.Appeal Error, refused to affidavits ty; plaintiffs and others. the the other ket well-drilling machine, alleged to have been dy & his should have his sureties in of which time it had been set down a number of of reasons questration record shows that the case had been postponement the a conflict converted ue of the plevy Counsel for case was 1904, $800. nounced was newly discovered evidence as to having introduced evidence that the hold there was though was authorize and testimony. the last praised is having notice trial, that tion for a new discovered as worth Exception —Ex Parte Affidavits. [Ed. Note.—For other Action C. R. Bowlin and J. Error from District SPEER, J. [1, Short, supported $100 the newly times and recovered good beginning replevy bond, Even value of R. H. purely cumulative; principal worth 2] The first in this it itself recites and, bond trial Dec. exceptions. $400. of the final had defendant originally testified the postponed. as a new by improperly placed for ready for point, discovered evidence as to the had, upon in error. though the plaintiffs give by Priddy. property and Error Buck, only evidence, bring so far as the record Dig. court for been J. J. O’Neal upon made In this state of the prosecute property granted by defendant From he was corroborated trial, of the judgment, the converted Defendant or continuance. and sureties which this a no trial for trial the it the § 553.*] to a valuation complaint rebuilt, error. Affirmed. for the bill of the trial court Judge. which judgment against in error for the by plaintiffs machine, is and error issue; a that testimony litigation alleged in sum of setting to be Capps, The affidavit for a se on the nearly and that a new trial on account bore date judgment well defendant at this writ of error. Court, appeal cases, error, in the the against The defendant and (§ 553*) exceptions, which was for the machine, the and in in G. $356.25, without value defendant error. gave $356.25. to note is that plaintiffs in the $100. trial for refusing six in error had due ground error sued Cantey, which would be of the case for in recovery sheriff property. Browning, see was Tarrant as sureties on in offered. the years, 12, only February G. B. for Besides, of a the place sufficient in —Bills Appeal he testified shows, record, wrongfully practically There was and transcript seeking the the judgment by plaintiff, ex of him and that, property error had the sum in error the pending The re sum Hanger in various the val certain Priddy during in of the Coun- newly parte value court binds other Prid- Upon error $300, mar The and mo for the the an ap op we al at of to a Dig. Rep’r, topic Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes same and section &Am. oases see NUMBERin Dec. * Forother