Court Opinion

ID: 9829091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:59:09.512049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:57.162084
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant’s counsel so earnestly insists that this court has erred in its decision of this ease in his motion for rehearing we have taken the case under consideration again, and in accordance with supposed errors presented in his motion for rehearing. In his motion for rehearing appellee insists that he is entitled to a judgment on the answer of appellant', garnishee, for the sum of $395.-80, plus $569.80. We have no hesitancy in saying that he is as justly entitled to such sum as he is entitled to the sum of $395.80.
There is nothing in this record to show how it came about that the Malone Lumber Company, in its dealing with the Jeanes Lumber Company, was able, after garnishment was served upon it, to get its debt of $1,300 plus against the Jeanes Lumber Company settled, and, in addition thereto, save $52.83 on the garnishment for the Davis Company. Eor all this court knows, it may have been' a thousand transactions, or it may have been one transaction. Suppose it grew out of fifty-three transactions, and on each transaction the Malone Lumber Company was able to save to the garnishee $1; would counsel contend that when the Malone Lumber Company had settled its own debt business must cease, or all that came into the hands of the Malone Lumber Company from the Jeanes Lumber Company must be held by the Malone Lumber Company for the Davis Company, regardless of cost to the Malone Lumber Company? If such be the contention of counsel, and if such were the law, it is safe to say the Davis Company would never have gotten anything in consequence of its garnishment.
Suppose the $52.83 is the result of one transaction between the parties, would ap-pellee’s counsel contend that more could be demanded? We think not. Vet, so far as this record discloses, it may have been one transaction, and, as we understand the law, the only way for appellee to have found out whether the garnishee was answering back to him, fairly, if he believed such was not the case, was to controvert his answer, and at least give the garnishee opportunity to answer such contest.
The statute quoted in the original opinion in this case as to attorney’s fees is clear, and we see no reason for mistake of the intention of this court on this matter.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.