Court Opinion

ID: 9829962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:45:22.286721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:09.476846
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee, in its motion for rehearing, insists that this court erred in holding that the funds in the hands of the garnishee were not current wages, and therefore subject to garnishment. Upon further examination of the record we find that this question was not passed upon by the lower court, although there was some evidence introduced on this phase of the case. However, the lower court only passed upon the motion to quash the writ of garnishment.
We therefore conclude that we were in error in passing upon the question as to *935whether or not the funds in the hands of garnishee were subject to garnishment; hence our original opinion is now withdrawn.
 The only question to be considered is the sufficiency of the application or affidavit for garnishment, which, .in full, is as follows:
“Marion Machine, Foundry & Supply Company v. C. M. Fouts et al., Defendant, Central Motor Co., Garnishee. No. 4238.
“In the County Court at Law of Eastland County, Texas.
“To the Honorable County Court at Law of Said Eastland County:
“The above-named plaintiff, Marion Machine, Foundry & Supply Company, by M. McCullough, its agent and attorney, respectfully, shows that it is plaintiff in a certain cause in this court numbered 4238 on the docket thereof, and wherein C. M. Fouts and W. A. Sudderth are defendants.
“(2) That plaintiff sued defendant in said suit for a debt amounting to the sum of $804. That said debt is just, due, and unpaid, and defendants have not, within the knowledge of plaintiff or of the person making affidavit in support of this application, property in their possession within this state subject to execution sufficient to satisfy such debt, and that the garnishment now applied for is not sued out to injure either the defendants or the garnishee, and that said defendants have not, within the knowledge of plaintiff or of the person making affidavit in support of this application, property in their possession within this state subject to execution sufficient to satisfy judgment.
“That plaintiff has reason to believe and does believe that Central Motor Company, a corporation, resident of the city of Waco in Mc-Lennan county, state of Texas, who resides in McLennan countjq Texas, is indebted to the defendant, and that it has in its hands effects belonging to the defendants or one of them. Wherefore plaintiff prays for writ of garnishment on said Central Motor Company, a corporation, and for further proceedings thereon as in like cases are provided by law.
“M. McCullough, Counsel for Plaintiff.
“M. McCullough, agent and attorney for the plaintiff mentioned in the foregoing application, being duly sworn upon his oath, says that the facts therein stated are true.
“M. McCullough.
“Sworn to and subscribed before me this 20th day of July, 1925.
“[Seal.] Ernest H. Jones, Co. Clk.,
“By E. E. Layton, Deputy.”
Appellee makes the following objections to the affidavit, for garnishment: That the affidavit for garnishment is fatally defective because it was not sworn to, it appearing on the face of the record that the jurat of the officer taking the oath is a nullity, same being “Sworn to before me, Ernest H. Jones, County Clerk, by E. E. Layton, Deputy.” That the garnishment writ was void, for the reason that the affidavit is insufficient, in that there are two defendants in the main suit and the wording of the affidavit is in^ the following language:
“That said debt is just, due, and unpaid and defendants have no property in their possession sufficient to satisfy such debt.”
We cannot agree with appellee that the jurat of the affidavit is fatally defective. Article 1938, R. S. 1925 (article 1749, R. S. 1911), requires deputy to act in the name of his principal; hence a jurat in name of county clerk by his deputy is good. Mayhew v. Commissioners’ Court (Tex. Civ. App.) 214 S. W. 943; Culp v. Commissioners’ Court (Tex. Civ. App.) 214 S. W. 944.
The objection to the affidavit, that it is indefinite and uncertain, because of the allegation that, the garnishee had in his hands effects belonging, to defendants, or one of them, is not well taken under the decisions in' White v. Lynch, 26 Tex. 195.
Appellees further object to the affidavit on account of the county clerk not naming the county. However, we conclude that this objection is not well taken, for the reason that the seal of the county clerk was properly impressed on the affidavit, and this court will take judicial knowledge of who was county clerk of Eastland county.
In an action, to foreclose the lien of a judgment in a county, where an abstract of the judgment rendered in another county is filed, the court will take judicial notice of who was clerk of the county in which the court is sitting at the time of filing of such abstract and of his official signature to the certificate thereto. Goodwin v. Harrison, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 7, 66 S. W. 308.
We therefore conclude that the trial court was in error in sustaining the motion of the appellees to quash the writ of garnishment.
Reversed and remanded.