Geiser Manufacturing Co. v. Watkins

Court of Appeals of Texas

Geiser Manufacturing Co. v. Watkins

126 S.W. 611, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 616, 1910 Tex. App. LEXIS 436

DecidedMarch 12, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 126 S.W. 611 (Geiser Manufacturing Co. v. Watkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Geiser Manufacturing Co. v. Watkins, 126 S.W. 611, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 616, 1910 Tex. App. LEXIS 436 (Tex. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

SPEER, Associate Justice.

This is a garnishment suit and ancillary to the Geiser Manufacturing Company v. H. A. Gray (this day decided), in which there was a judgment for the garnishees and the plaintiff lias appealed. The question of error presented is as to the court’s action in sustaining the garnishees’ motion to quash the bond and writs of garnishment because the garnishment bond “shows upon its face that it was executed after writs of garnishment had been issued.” The affidavit and bond for garnishment were written upon the same sheet of paper, the affidavit being subscribed on December 15, 1908, and the bond bearing date and being approved on the same day. The writ quashed bears date December 16, 1908, upon which the sheriff’s return shows it came to his hand • on that day and was executed on the following day.

The language of the bond, which the trial court held to be fatal, is as follows: “Whereas, in the cause of the Geiser Manufacturing Company v. H. A. Gray, suit now pending in the County Court of Potter County, Texas, the file Ho. of which is 801, plaintiff caused writs of garnishment to issue against W. A. Watkins and Prank Wilson,” etc. The use in this connection of the word “caused” does not necessarily or even fairly show that the issuance of the writ of garnishment had preceded the execution and filing of the bond, but serves merely to identify the suit out of which the garnishment proceedings arose. In other words, it indicates that by this initial process plaintiff has this day caused the issuance of the garnishment writs. Wright v. Eagland, 18 Texas, 289. The date of the issuance of the writ of garnishment shows further that it did not precede, but followed the making of the bond.

Por the error of the court in sustaining appellees’ motion to quash the bond and writs of garnishment, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for another trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SPEER, Associate Justice.

This is a garnishment suit and ancillary to the Geiser Manufacturing Company v. H. A. Gray (this day decided), in which there was a judgment for the garnishees and the plaintiff lias appealed. The question of error presented is as to the court’s action in sustaining the garnishees’ motion to quash the bond and writs of garnishment because the garnishment bond “shows upon its face that it was executed after writs of garnishment had been issued.” The affidavit and bond for garnishment were written upon the same sheet of paper, the affidavit being subscribed on December 15, 1908, and the bond bearing date and being approved on the same day. The writ quashed bears date December 16, 1908, upon which the sheriff’s return shows it came to his hand • on that day and was executed on the following day.

The language of the bond, which the trial court held to be fatal, is as follows: “Whereas, in the cause of the Geiser Manufacturing Company v. H. A. Gray, suit now pending in the County Court of Potter County, Texas, the file Ho. of which is 801, plaintiff caused writs of garnishment to issue against W. A. Watkins and Prank Wilson,” etc. The use in this connection of the word “caused” does not necessarily or even fairly show that the issuance of the writ of garnishment had preceded the execution and filing of the bond, but serves merely to identify the suit out of which the garnishment proceedings arose. In other words, it indicates that by this initial process plaintiff has this day caused the issuance of the garnishment writs. Wright v. Eagland, 18 Texas, 289. The date of the issuance of the writ of garnishment shows further that it did not precede, but followed the making of the bond.

Por the error of the court in sustaining appellees’ motion to quash the bond and writs of garnishment, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for another trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.W. 611, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 616, 1910 Tex. App. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geiser-manufacturing-co-v-watkins-texapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack