Court Opinion

ID: 9832605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:01:58.240553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:48.696855
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Both the appellant and appellee have filed: motions for rehearing in this cause, the appellant alleging error upon the ground that the judgment of the trial court should have-been reversed and rendered by this court rather than reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The motion of the appellee-vigorously calls into question the correctness of the decision of this court and prays for an affirmance of the judgment of the trial court.
We have carefully cbnsidered both motions and are of the opinion that each should be-overruled. Inasmuch, however, as the appellant asserts that the case was tried upon the theory that the contest was only between the appellant and appellees and that judgment was not sought against the garnishee by reason of its having defaulted, and this assertion not being contested or denied by the appellees in their motion for rehearing, we have concluded that the order of this court remanding this cause for further proceedings, be modified to this extent:
The judgment of the trial court awarding appellee Gambill a judgment against the garnishee, the city of Corsicana, and decreeing-that the intervener, appellant, take nothing, be set aside and judgment here rendered that appellee take nothing by his suit against the garnishee.
We are unable to render judgment in favor of appellant against the garnishee, because there is no competent evidence in the-record upon which such judgment can be based. The intervener is not entitled to a judgment by default against the garnishee, and the record fails to show by competent evidence the exact arfxount owing by the city *311of Corsicana upon the contract involved in this controversy.
The cause will therefore be remanded for a determination of the issue between the appellant and the garnishee.