Case Name: F. M. Jeffries v. F. M. Smith et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1903-03-11
Citations: 31 Tex. Civ. App. 582
Docket Number: 
Parties: F. M. Jeffries v. F. M. Smith et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Civil Appeals Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 582–582

Head Matter:
F. M. Jeffries v. F. M. Smith et al.
Decided March 11, 1903.
Garnishment After Judgment—Judicial Notice.
A. proceeding to obtain garnishment after judgment is ancillary to the main suit, and, as the court takes judicial notice of the proceedings therein, it is unnecessary to show in the application that judgment was rendered against the defendant against whom garnishment is sought.
Error from the County Court of- Bell. Tried below before Hon. G-. M. Felts.
Jeffries prosecutes error from a judgment quashing a writ of garnishment sued out after judgment and dismissing the garnishment proceedings on demurrer.
John B. Durrett, for plaintiff in error.
D. L. Russell and A. M. Monteith, for defendants in error.

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.