Oswald v. Giles

7 Citing cases

  1. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Wilcox

    95 S.W.2d 1368 (Tex. Civ. App. 1936)   Cited 2 times

    As between appellant and Kinsel that rule may have been applicable, but the rule has no application as between appellant and appellee, who held a prior registered mortgage on the automobile, which was notice to the world of its existence. As between Kinsel, the mortgagor, and appellee, the senior mortgagee, both the mortgage and the statute (article 5496) prohibit the removal of the mortgaged property out of the county; and in the case of Oswald v. Giles (Tex.Civ.App.) 178 S.W. 677, 679, it is held: "The purchase of the property by the defendants with notice of the mortgage and its removal from the county of Galveston, without the consent of the holder of the mortgage, was a conversion of the property, and plaintiff, as the assignee of the mortgage, was entitled to sue therefor." In 26 R.C.L. 1136, the rule is stated that: "Where the mortgagee is given the right to take possession upon the removal or sale of the property, its removal or sale constitutes a conversion for which the mortgagee may bring trover."

  2. Mothner v. Granata

    69 S.W.2d 775 (Tex. Civ. App. 1934)   Cited 1 times

    This contention is without merit. Regardless of the rule announced in earlier cases, such as Oswald v. Giles (Tex.Civ.App.) 178 S.W. 677, 679, it is now the rule that, in passing upon an issue of limitation raised by exception to the pleadings, it is the duty of the trial court to look to the file marks and contents of superseded pleadings. Rule 14 for district and county courts; Askey v. Power (Tex.Com.App.)

  3. Braddock v. Brockman

    49 S.W.2d 908 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932)   Cited 5 times

    As said by our Supreme Court in Grounds v. Sloan, 73 Tex. 662, 11 S.W. 898, 899: "Where the question of limitation is raised on the pleadings by exception instead of by plea, the question is not, do the pleadings affirmatively show that the action is not barred? but is, do they allege all the facts required to show that it was barred when the suit was brought?" Oswald v. Giles (Tex.Civ.App.) 178 S.W. 677. The error of the trial court in sustaining said exception is further made to appear when considered in the light of Rules 13, 14, and 84 for district and county courts.

  4. Hamilton v. Wm. H. Swanson Film Co.

    206 S.W. 574 (Tex. Civ. App. 1918)   Cited 4 times

    It is true that the interveners' petition does not show upon its face that the cause of action is barred by limitation; therefore the defense cannot be maintained by exceptions, but must be affirmatively pleaded and proven to be a defense to this cause of action. Oswald v. Giles, 178 S.W. 677. This brings us to the fifth and last assignment, which complains of the instructed verdict, and is followed by many propositions.

  5. City of Ft. Worth v. Rosen

    203 S.W. 84 (Tex. Civ. App. 1918)   Cited 7 times

    Evans v. Jackson, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 277, 92 S.W. 47. We have examined the cases of Oswald v. Giles, 178 S.W. 677, Glasscock v. Hamilton, 62 Tex. 143, Cunningham v. Frandtzen, 26 Tex. 35, and other cases cited by appellant; but we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by us upon this issue is not by conflict with the holding in these cases. Was plaintiff entitled, as a matter of law, at the time his motion was filed, and on the ground of surprise, to withdraw his announcement of ready and have the cause postponed?

  6. T. W. Marse Co. v. Flockinger

    189 S.W. 1017 (Tex. Civ. App. 1916)   Cited 4 times

    While they are proper parties, they are not necessary parties. See 38 Cyc. 2053; article 5660, R.S.; Liberal Loan Realty Co. v. Meyers, 186 S.W. 433; Fouts v. Ayres, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 338, 32 S.W. 435; Focke v. Blum, 82 Tex. 436, 17 S.W. 770; Scaling v. Bank, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 154, 87 S.W. 715; Ward v. Gibbs, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 287, 30 S.W. 1125; Rector v. Mill Co., 103 S.W. 710; Oswald v. Giles, 178 S.W. 677. We do not think that the court erred in admitting parol testimony to show the contents of the Poole note: (1) Because it appears that the same was not within the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore secondary evidence was admissible to prove its contents.

  7. Liberal Loan Realty Co. v. Meyers

    186 S.W. 433 (Tex. Civ. App. 1916)   Cited 1 times

    In the case of Ward v. Gibbs, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 287, 30 S.W. 1125, it was held that the landlord could sue for conversion of property raised on his farm, without making the tenant a party. To the same effect is Oswald v. Giles, 178 S.W. 677, and Rector v. Mill Co., 103 S.W. 710. The authorities cited by appellant are not applicable to the state of facts disclosed by this record.