19 Tex. Civ. App. 672 - Avery Sons v. Waples’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The provision, is plain and unambiguous. If the contract entered into between the hardware company and Avery & Sons falls within the scope of its provisions, we think it clear that said contract is of no force and effect as against the assignee. That it does, we think there can be no doubt. The property embraced in the contract was a part of the general stock of hardware and agricultural implements daily exposed to sale, in parcels in the regular course of business. The Leeper Hardware Company was to' re tain possession 'of the goods and control of the business, and continue to sell the goods. Bank v. Lovenberg, 63 Tex. 506 ; Cook v. Halsell, 65 Tex. 1 ; Duncan v. Taylor, 63 Tex. 645 ; Wilber v. Kray, 73 Tex. 533 [ 11 S. W. 540 ], That the contract embraced only a part of the general stock .is immaterial. If a part only was allowed to be mortgaged, the object of the statute could readily be defeated. The object of the statute was to prevent collusion between debtor and creditor to the prejudice of all others. Bank v. Lovenberg, 63 Tex. 506 . If said provision of the statute should be construed so that all of the stock of goods must be embraced in the mortgage to make it void, the object for which it was enacted could readily be defeated by mortgaging the greater part thereof.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Raney