Court Opinion

ID: 9827736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:48:40.238181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:35.552063
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The record in the above appeal has been corrected since the ruling of this court dismissing the appeal. It is now made to appear that this court had jurisdiction to determine the appeal, and therefore the former order of dismissal is set aside.
[1-3] The appeal is from the judgment of the trial court quashing the affidavit and writ of granishment and dismissing the proceedings. It appears that the appellant had an unsatisfied judgment for debt against H, E. Barrett, and be made and filed an affidavit for garnishment, which reads, omitting the description of the judgment, as follows:
“That the said H. E. Barrett, defendant, has not within the knowledge of the affiant, property in his (H. E. Barrett’s) p’ossession within this state subject to execution sufficient to satisfy said judgment; that affiant has reason to believe and does believe that the First State Bank of Mt. Calm, a corporation, whose place of business is in Hill county, Texas, of which B. H. Oates is the president and R. J. Moore is the cashier, both of whom reside in Hill county, and that the First National Bank of Mt. Calm, a corporation, whose place of business is in Hill county, Texas, of which B. H. Oates is the president, and Burl Hillyer is the cashier, both of whom reside in Hill county, are severally indebted to the defendant, H. E. Barrett, and that they severally have in their hands effects belonging to the said H. E. Barrett; and that affiant has reason to believe and does believe that said two banks are severally indebted to *972one Mrs. Mattie K. Barrett, tlie wife of said H. E. Barrett, or severally have in their hands effects belonging to the said Mattie E. Barrett, which effects and funds affiant believes, and so charges, are the community property of the said H. E. Barrett and wife. Affiant further states that the writs of garnishment now applied for are not sued out to injure either the defendant, or the said First State Bank of Mt. Calm, or the said First National Bank of Mt. Calm, gai’-nishees, or the said Mattie K. Barrett, or any of them. Affiant prays for writs of garnishment against the said First State Bank of Mt. Calm and the First National Bank of Mt. Calm, mentioned and described above.”
It is believed that the grounds for quashing the writ should have been overruled. All the statutory requirements of an affidavit for garnishment being met, it is immaterial that other allegations are made. Cawthon v. Bank, 193 S. W. 783. And the community property could be impounded, no matter in whose name it stood. Bank v. Rogers, 170 S. W. 258. It was'not necessary to give bond after the alleged judgment was obtained.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for trial.