Case Name: Hawkins Kelly v. Mrs. S. E. Gibbs
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1892-03-22
Citations: 84 Tex. 143
Docket Number: No. 3187
Parties: Hawkins Kelly v. Mrs. S. E. Gibbs.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 143–148

Head Matter:
Hawkins Kelly v. Mrs. S. E. Gibbs.
No. 3187.
1. Issues in Garnishment Proceedings. — After the filing of an answer by the garnishee, sufficient to prevent a judgment by default, and an affidavit controverting this answer, the statute (Bev. Stats., art. 213) provides, that “an issue shall be formed under the direction of the court and tried as other cases.” In such case it is not necessary that the allegations setting out the issue should be under oath. Such issue by consent may be submitted orally.
2. Costs in Garnishment Proceedings. — "Where a garnisheefiles an answer denying all indebtedness, and such answer is controverted and issue is formed, the garnishee assumes the character of a litigant, and if unsuccessful he is liable to a judgment for costs.
ON BBHEABING.
3. Subrogation to Lien Holder’s Rights. — A garnishee was condemned to pay-an indebtedness of §80, secured on his crops. The judgment declared that the plaintiff be subrogated to all the liens the defendant had against the garnishee for the debt. It being objected that no sufficient description was made of the crops subjected, it is held, that as no decree of foreclosure against said crops was ordered a description was not necessary to support the order made.
4. Garnishment Proceedings Auxiliary. — As garnishment proceedings are auxiliary to other proceedings, the court will take notice of the proceedings in the main suit. If such proceedings are in aid of a judgment rendered the court will notice it without its introduction in evidence. A garnishee attacking the judgment must show its invalidity or it will he held valid.
Appeal from Walker. Tried below before Hon. H. G. Kittrell.
No statement is necessary.
McKinney & Kill, for appellant.
— 1. Ho evidence was offered on the trial of the cause respecting the alleged judgment of Sanford Gibbs against Ward, Dewey & Co., mentioned in appellee’s affidavit for garnishment, and the court could not take judicial knowledge of it. Drake on Attach., secs. 460, 697, and note; Johnson v. McCutchings, 43 Texas, 553; 2 Ct. App. C. C., sec. 93.
2. The judgment of the court is erroneous, in that by its terms the plaintiff is subrogated to all the rights, remedies, and liens held, owned, or controlled by A. J.Ward, the defendant in execution, against the mule described in plaintiff’s affidavit, and the crops of corn and cotton raised by said garnishee as alleged for the purpose of enforcing the collection of the amount adjudged against said garnishee, there being no sufficient pleading or proof to warrant such a judgment, and because there is no description in said judgment as to the amount or value of said crops. Spiva v. Williams, 20 Texas, 442.
3. The court erred in taxing the costs of the garnishment against the garnishee Kelly. Rev. Stats., art. 219; White v. Casey, 25 Texas, 552.
Campbell & Ball, for appellee.
— 1. Appellant did not file a general denial to plaintiff’s affidavit for writ of garnishment; nor did garnishee file any plea in this cause setting up the want of such judgment, as stated in plaintiff’s affidavit; and did not orally or otherwise raise said issue.
2. A judgment foreclosing a lien upon property is not required to set out the value of each article upon which a lien is foreclosed, the property only being worth in such a case what it will bring under execution or order of sale. This judgment is amply sufficient, it being-only, as to the part complained of, in effect to place Mrs. S. B. Gibbs in the place and stead of A. J. Ward, defendant in execution, giving to her the rights and remedies owned and held by A. J. Ward as landlord, and was for the protection of both; and the judgment giving her the benefit of such lien upon the mule and crops of corn and cotton is the only judgment that could have been properly rendered under the. law and facts, and did sufficiently describe the property. The statute governing the rights of landlords and tenants would control in the enforcement of said judgment. The judgment was certain, in that it was for a sum certain, to-wit, $80, and execution could only issue for said amount. Rev. Stats., art. 3107; Jordan v. Brophy, 41 Texas, 283; Baldridge v. Scott, 48 Texas, 178.
3. The answer of garnishee Kelly necessitated affidavit of plaintiff controverting same. The costs of the proceedings were therefore properly taxed against Kelly, garnishee, he having necessitated by his answer the major part of the whole costs. Rev. Stats, art. 219; Railway v. Hoskins, 2 Ct. App. C. C., sec. 67.

Opinion:
TARLTON, Judge,
Section B. — This is a proceeding in garnishment,, instituted August 31, 1891, by Mrs. S. E. Gibbs, executrix of the estate of Sanford Gibbs, deceased, against Hawkins Kelly, as a debtor of A. J. Ward. The affidavit in garnishment, alleging the grounds therefor provided, is founded upon a judgment charged to have been recovered by Sanford Gibbs in the District Court of Walker County, on April 12, 1878, for $1507, besides interest, against Ward, Dewey & Co., a firm composed of A. J. Ward, E. C. Dewey, and Nathan Patton.
September 29, 1891, Kelly answered in the negative, in writing and under oath, the several statutory questions suggested in the writ.
October 12, 1891, Mrs. S. E. Gibbs filed an affidavit controverting the garnishee's answer. Prefixed to the statement of facts is a statement by the trial judge, that "the parties agree to join issue orally on the garnishee's answer. The defendant garnishee files general denial, or same is considered filed. The plaintiff's replication is," etc.
October 14, 1891, the court rendered judgment for appellee against appellant for $80 and costs, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
The court found it to be a fact that there was a valid and unsatisfied judgment in favor of plaintiff's testator, Sanford Gibbs, against A. J. Ward and others, as alleged in plaintiff's affidavit. Appellant complains of this conclusion, because there was no evidence showing the existence of the judgment in question.
After the filing of an answer sufficient to prevent a judgment by default, and- an affidavit controverting this answer, our statute (art. 213, Rev. Stats.) provides, that "an issue shall be formed under the direction of the court and tried as other cases." In this case such an issue was formed, and by consent of parties it was submitted orally. It was not necessary that the allegations setting out the issue should be under oath. Ins. Co. v. Willis Bro., 70 Texas, 12. In joining issue, it appears that the defendant pleaded the general denial. This, in our opinion, cast upon the plaintiff the burden of proving the existence of the judgment which was at the foundation of the proceeding. As the record shows that such proof was not made, the judgment is erroneous.
Kelly, the garnishee, was a tenant of Ward, the judgment debtor. The court found that Kelly owed Ward $80 for a mule which the latter had furnished him for the purpose of enabling him to make a crop of corn and cotton during the year 1891. The court, after decreeing a recovery of $80, in effect adjudged, "that Mrs. Sallie E. Gibbs, executrix of Sanford Gibbs, deceased, be and is here now subrogated to all the rights, remedies, and liens now owned, held, or controlled by A. J. Ward against the mule described in plaintiff's affidavit, and the crop of corn and cotton raised by Hawkins Kelly on land rented from A. J. Ward during the year 1891."
Appellant complains that this judgment is erroneous, because "there is no description as to the amount or value of said crops." The judgment in this case is for $80 — a sum certain. The lien under the statute (Eev. Stats., art. 3107) extends to the "crop" raised on the rented premises. The description in such a case is necessarily vague. Bourcier v. Edmondson, 58 Texas, 675. It is therefore not necessary that the "amount or the value" of the crops should be ascertained in the judgment. It would appear, however, that the land on which the crop was raised should be more clearly identified than was done in this instance. It was certainly in the power of the pleader to give a more definite •description of the rented premises than is contained in the expression, "land rented from A. J. Ward during the year 1891." Bourcier v. Edmondson, supra; Murray v. Land, 27 Texas, 89.
It is contended, that it was error to render judgment against the garnishee for costs. In this case the garnishee filed an answer denying all indebtedness. An issue was formed to try this fact. He thus assumes the attitude of a litigant; and if unsuccessful, he is liable to a judgment for costs. Drake on Attach., sec. 662; Rev. Stats., art. 219.
It is also urged, that the court erred in finding the garnishee indebted to the alleged judgment debtor. We have examined the testimony, and we think that it supports the conclusion in this regard reached by the court.
As already indicated, however, the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Adopted March 22, 1892.