Court Opinion

ID: 9832512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:58:20.841048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:47.578227
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is earnestly insisted by appellant that since the writ of garnishment in this ease bore an incorrect date, it was equivalent to no date and would be ruled by the case of Security State Bank & Trust Co. v. Higginbotham Bros. & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 250 S. W. 790, and by the provision of article 4082, R. S., which. requires that such writ shall be dated.
A somewhat analogous question arose in the construction of the article of the statute requiring a ballot to 'be numbered. Judge Brown of the Supreme Court, in the case of Gray v. State, 92 Tex. 396, 49 S. W. 217, held, in effect, that a ballot was not rendered illegal by virtue alone of the fact that it was incorrectly numbered, where the means of identification of the voter was available. It is held otherwise where the ballot bears no number. Johnston v. Peters (Tex. Civ. App.) 260 S. W. 911; State v. Connor, 86 Tex. 133, 23 S. W. 1103.
Stated otherwise, the letter of the law is complied with when a number is placed on the ballot, though the same be an incorrect one. So here, the letter of the law has been complied with by giving the writ a date, and it will be noticed that the statute does not require the application and bond in garnishment to be made and filed prior to the “date” of a writ, but uses instead the word “issuance,” the meaning of which is discussed in the original opinion.
It is further suggested that a wrong date might mislead to his injury the adverse party. The law. would doubtless grant relief in such case upon an appropriate showing. That question is not before us in this case.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.