Case Name: Westmoreland v. Miller
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1852
Citations: 8 Tex. 168
Docket Number: 
Parties: Westmoreland v. Miller.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 84–85

Head Matter:
Westmoreland v. Miller.
Where judgment is obtained against a debtor as garnishee, and he is afterwards sued by his original creditor, he is entitled to have the plaintiff in tiie garnishment made a party to the suit and to have a judgment which will protect him against being required to pay the same ddbt twice. (Note 3U.)
(Vote 39. — Miller v. Taylor, 14 T., 538 The garnishee, when cited in garnishment, has the right to make aU persons interested in Ms debt parties to tlie suit. (Igleliart v. Moore, 21 T., SOI; Igleliart v. Mills, 21 T., 0-13; Iieuison u. League, LU T., .'190; Taylor v. Gillean, 23 T., S08.)
Error from Houston. Tins suit was brought by the defendant in error, for the use of Burris and wife, against the defendant, on a contract to pay l wo hundred dollars on or before the tirst day of .January, A. D. 1851, for rent. The plaintiff contracted in the lease of the land as agent for P. .J. Burris and Ids wife. E. S. Burris. The defendant in the court below answered that lie admitted that ho owed the debt named in the petition and that he was ready and willing' to pay the same as the court might order, but said that on the 23th (lay of October, 1830, be was garnisheed at the instance of A. J. Corley, agent, &c., to appear before one W. II. L. Burton, a justice of the peace for said Houston county, to state on oath in regard to his indebtedness to said Elizabeth, who has lately intermarried with Mr. Burris; that in pursuance, of said mandate he did appear and answer, and upon Ins answer judgment was rendered against him as garnishee on tlie 2d day of November, 1830, for one hundred and eighteen dollars and costs, “which judgment now stands against him unreversed.” He liled a transcript of the proceedings before the justice of the peace, and asked tlie court to protect him in the payment of the same, averring that his indebtedness admitted before said justice of tlie peace was a part of the indebtedness nowhere sued oil and admitted, lie prayed “that Corley, who resided in (he same comity, be made defendant hereto; that process may issue to bring him into court; that the said Corley and Miller, for the use, so implead one another that the court may be tlie better advised as to who should receive said money, and that lie be protected from cost and litigation.” Accompanying tlie answer was a transcript of the proceeding's referred to by the defendant, showing that Corley, as agent for Elisha Clapp, had recovered judgment; that an execution had issued and returned no properly; tlie writ of garnishment; tlie answer of tlie garnishee and tlie judgment against him. Tlie* plaintiff demurred specially to tlie answer; the court below sustained the demurrer, and judgment went for tlie plaintiff.
Yoakum and Taylor, for plaintiff in error.
S. A. Miller, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Lipscomb, J.
Tlie plaintiff demurred to the answer of the defendant, and as grounds of demurrer stated many objections to the proceedings before the justice of tlie peace which we will not notice, because we believe that if available at all they can only bo urged after making tlie plaintiff in the garnishment a party. The court below, however, thought otherwise, and sustained the demurrer and gave judgment against the defendant. It is believed, although tlie judgment and proceedings of the justice of the peace may be obnoxious to the objections taken to them by the plaintiff in this suit, yet that the plaintiff in those proceedings lias a right to be heard before they are ruled against him, and tlie defendant in the garnishment ought not to have been left by the court below in peril of having two judgments enforced against him for tlie same debt, and further, that the defendant cannot be called upon to defend the correctness of the proceedings before tlie justice of the peace. He was called upon to disclose what lie was indebted and not to object to tlie proceedings agaiust Mrs. Iludwell, afterwards intermarried with Bnrris. We consider that this question was settled hy the decision of this court in Dobbins v. Wybrants and Wybrants v. Rice and Nichols, decided at Austin, December Term, ISIS. We believe that Corley ought to have been brought in, and then the eoni't could have passed upon his judgment and either allowed and given effect to it or perpetually enjoined its recovery against the garnishee.
Judgment reversed.