Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-20

lant are not Wei taken aud that the evil
Snt6Sri1we' vas ~ amply s .an,ieien, not only 70
ths jury, hut 60 sustain their aldlngs there
on ahd that this ease Is fairly brought
Miihln that line OF decisions which tecag-
nite the right OF the wife when thrown upon
9er own resources by her husbands nban-
aonmcnt to dispose N the community prop.
CulleFs a Henry V James &C Texas. fa4:
Iiuplcnal w Robh. J3 Texas pa: Ifui.
igtion W. Doyle rs Texas g; Wright VS..
N Na{ss, 4, 10 texas, lSo, Carrothers VS.. Nc
What We have said dlsposes Of the other
asslgninetts on error against appellant, md
ment Of the court below sh5lil be- in AM
Things affirmed, aud it @ 70 ordered
Associate Justice.
No. 50 First National bank Of Montague.
plaiuuu iu error. W. A. B. Robertson de.
ienuant Ia error Error FROM the district
OPINION
ON the 24th Of January, 1880. A. II Rob.
Sg l.9n , ,ge r QUE wrlt Of gsrnisshmcnt
tnEuc Tex. upon Judgment rendered n
nus inNot m the district court OF Mitchell
county FOR the sum of Sa.22GG8 against A.
cembCr tNSS
The guruIshcc was alleged TO be a cor.
polAlon having iis principal oncc IN Mon.
,asue county ana that it was believed 60 be
indebted TO A. L. Mntlock aud that snid
AluuOCh WAS the OWNER of shnrps tbprpIu
i ,,. fernisiee falling. TO answer 10 the sue
ant ln error applied for and obtained
lhc issuance of commission 10 Montague
.ouliiy io take its answers 10 the writ OF
kMhlshmehL Ihis commission rpcitcd the
service OF the writ of garnlshmeut and ihp
lalluie OF the Enruishpp to auswcr aud uro.
cccucd az follows. "Now, therefore, YOU
are hereby commanded forthwith io stn
Won w, A. Morris. Che cushlrr of said First
W., ,a'ygnu pauA oI Montague Tex before
gi'.i,2 TnsH,I up9h olih' etc. This com
H'',,'n having comic Into thn hands OF W.
a. Williams. clerk OF the county CONT ol
Al"nlaEuc county, hv duly mudo RETURN thHt
ON thr ~ day Of November 1ssl w A
Morris. the Witups, before named nppsnr,si
u'loir nam ANA mudv answer us sct forth
W,l,ln' tnesg answers Nrc headed "Au.
sM,ls or w. a. Norris, aud among other
mugs say, Ol "thut on the suid 2eth dny Or
january, 1851, cor when the said writ uf
ElIhlruutul was served uu him He cashier
9l the .irst National bluk ot Montague.
l'AhH, inc said bank owed said a. D. Mat.
iotk nothing, on tho other hand said a
J.. Nuuutk owed the bank over $1,000 with
u.lueu interest which amount ho sim
D. Malock az Tie date said writ on garnlsl
npul was served uu him owned HIAtv shares
~ mo FIRST National bank of Montague.
Texas, amounting 90 the sum of $1,000 hni
me said bank stock aforesaid was nt thc
llL'v halG win or garuismuunt Was served
~ ",'u Hypolu, thicl To- j, y, turWcil s.
20, 70 secure the payment tD thru uf
note of SOnOO. and Thar said huuk stock h
tull hypothetical 60 said j. " Farwrll &
.39,s to secure them the payment of said
interest iu said bank NOR had nt thr time
aaid writ or rarnlshmput Wus served upon
uW except the bank stock above mention.
r9,, isiucil W. A. Morris cashier
To this answer CA the an day ol Docpm.
per, 1879, exceptions were hlri ugtpuslniv
in 'hr interest Of defendant in error upon
lhr Erguhd lhat the gulnlshce bad nIlri
aud refused 10 answer what ID was iudrbt
sI I" ". dricndnht' A. j. Matlock 40 the
haa tlled 10 answer what number uf nharfs
said defendant Matlock had in said bank
~ tue umc uf said answer. These pnpuu.
lohs 90 not seem Co have been signed rItLrr
~ urlehuaut Ia error or hIs counsel ON
the same day, however the court rendered
Judgement sustaining tho same ana gave
against said bank az gaTuisbrr for the sum
or NiiOfOI TO reverse which this wrlf pf
error u prosecuted
Tho exceptions 90 the answer of tho gar
hlshee not being sigurd by defendant bon
error hls counsel % rs doubtful WHITTIER
ihty should have been considered br ib.
ySU .,n mellow b, i2r n{ pmp4se iIemmiug
hlllln5iUu, So Texas. l8I. mis- ohIrnflau
however does not seem to have been ruIs.
rl in We court below aud treating 10 as
uhNlht urrn waived we are of opinion that
the court erred m holding tho e1cpptious
well taken. 10 u true the answer 6f thc
lhllnHt.r lQ'H NOT Ia those exact words
t.hlt lhnt me bank WIS not indebted tn
Mntlock nor Chat De- aid not own aharps of
stock therein ut tho time the aurwoIs Were
taken tu the mtorrogatorlps IND A.. I'
lieyo that mo- other Inference can flir, H..
drawn from tho answers us mnlc ana that
they ala substantially negative aucb Wdrbf
G mants snI i6 9"9sG 5 Drake on attach
that at The time of tho service on M WIN
OF FarnlHhmrnt Tho bank owed Matlock
nothing but ou the contrary he owed III
$500 which he still owes; also TINT bo bad
no interest in the bank other linn tLe
slAty shares Or stock hypoihccRted to Far.
lecl these shares 20 sale ns required by nv
statute. but "a personal Judgment was rent
cred against the bank Tor the full amount
of the Judgment ono favor I'd defsDd4uf Iti |
error against Matlock us upon "A total fsil
ure tO answer. We arc clearly of opluIGu |
that THIS was error N the answer on thr |
ing In the record 60 Indicate such wilfuu
failure OF refusal upon Cos part 10 mako fuli |
answer as seems 90 Doe required by our
statute 40 subject it 10 q Judgment hy dp. /
fault Johnson vs.. grarbofoueh. Ia ifar1. /
alh Tho failure to make more specific nu.
hMefs seems io ts 90 hr attributable moro 40 |
10 writing Than 90 any desire On thc part I
Of the garElshee 90 Dvadp answering
Again n VIII Do noted that ihe commits /
alpu under which the answer OF TIE garni. 4
shee was taken required the officer fo M lr, /
10 was directed 90 take the answers IN 4
w A. Morris, the cashier OF the bnnk moi 4
eral -iucl been decided 40 this stale thar l
such service viii not sustain ludgnlout uy /
dftault against corporation aud n may /
we'll be doubted whether the answers of l
Morris under this commission would confer /
jurisdiction upon the court 10 render a lurg /
meut by defiant flor a judgment f8r feN /
ure 10 make flll answer would seem 10 ~
% Judgment hY dofaulu ag1ust the bank |
but a. mis- question is not raised iu tho /
assignments OF error and af there are
expressions in some ~ the decisions which /
might seem 20 give weight 10 such 90 nu
aWer az between The parties NJ ihls prlccad
ing we Viii not undertake lbs decision
sun Mutual ms 60, vs. Seelgs0n. 90 TeXas !
ers "a. lus. Co, 0a Texas, or. lus co.. vh !
Friedman Bros "a Texas 90.
We are or opinion shat the Judfnont 20 |
the court I alow should Dee revised aud ihe
cause reuianded, aud il q - ordered
HEAD