Jeffries v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Texas

Jeffries v. Smith

73 S.W. 42, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 582, 1903 Tex. App. LEXIS 131

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 11, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 S.W. 42 (Jeffries v. Smith) 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

Jeffries v. Smith, 73 S.W. 42, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 582, 1903 Tex. App. LEXIS 131 (Tex. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

KEY, Associate Justice.

We hold that the court erred in sustaining the demurrers and motion to quash the application and writ of garnishment. The garnishment proceeding was ancillary to the main suit in which judgment had been rendered, and the court was required to take judicial knowledge of the existence and terms of the original judgment. Kelly v. Gibbs, 84 Texas, 143 ; Simon v. Greer, 34 S. W. Rep., 343.

The writ of garnishment was sought on the ground that the garnishee was indebted to William Thatcher, one of the defendants against whom the original judgment had been rendered. It is true that in the original suit there were other defendants; and it is also true that the application for writ of garnishment does not specifically state that judgment had been rendered against Thatcher. However, it properly describes the suit, and states that on the 5th day of Hay, 1899, a judgment was rendered for the applicant for $538.50, and that nothing had been paid or collected on that judgment. We hold that this was sufficient. It sufficiently identified a judgment previously rendered by the same court; and the garnishment proceeding being ancillary to the main suit, and the court taking judicial knowledge of the terms of the judgment previously rendered, it was unnecessary for the application to specifically state that the judgment was rendered against Thatcher.

Reversed and remanded.

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

KEY, Associate Justice.

We hold that the court erred in sustaining the demurrers and motion to quash the application and writ of garnishment. The garnishment proceeding was ancillary to the main suit in which judgment had been rendered, and the court was required to take judicial knowledge of the existence and terms of the original judgment. Kelly v. Gibbs, 84 Texas, 143 ; Simon v. Greer, 34 S. W. Rep., 343.

The writ of garnishment was sought on the ground that the garnishee was indebted to William Thatcher, one of the defendants against whom the original judgment had been rendered. It is true that in the original suit there were other defendants; and it is also true that the application for writ of garnishment does not specifically state that judgment had been rendered against Thatcher. However, it properly describes the suit, and states that on the 5th day of Hay, 1899, a judgment was rendered for the applicant for $538.50, and that nothing had been paid or collected on that judgment. We hold that this was sufficient. It sufficiently identified a judgment previously rendered by the same court; and the garnishment proceeding being ancillary to the main suit, and the court taking judicial knowledge of the terms of the judgment previously rendered, it was unnecessary for the application to specifically state that the judgment was rendered against Thatcher.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.W. 42, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 582, 1903 Tex. App. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeffries-v-smith-texapp-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack