Court Opinion

ID: 9834292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:28:05.256453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:13.621275
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[3] Upon further consideration we have concluded that we erred in holding that the children of Mrs. Hudson were not necessary parties in determining the issues raised by appellant’s contest of the garnishee’s answer. In our main opinion we followed the line of authorities which in effect hold that, where the garnishee would protect himself by the judgment rendered against him 'in the garnishment proceedings and avoid liability to others claiming the debt or effects held by him, it is incumbent upon him to make such others parties to the suit in order that their rights might be litigated in that proceeding. We now think that that principle does not apply, to a case like this, but that this case must be determined upon the line of cases which hold that, as a general rule, in suits by or against a trustee for the recovery or defense of property, the beneficiaries are necessary parties. There is nothing in the facts of this case to make it an exception to the general rule. We think therefore that when J. O. League attacked the deed of trust under which Thomas B. Scott held the separate property of Mrs. Hudson, in trust for the use and benefit of Mrs. Hudson and her children, the beneficiaries were necessary parties, and that the court very properly sustained the plea in abatement. Monday v. Vance, 11 Tex Civ. App. 374, 32 S. W. 559; Boles v. Lin*1131thicum, 48 Tex. 221; Ebell v. Bursinger, 70 Tex. 120, 8 S. W. 77; Preston v. Carter, 80 Tex. 388, 16 S. W. 17. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Affirmed.