Court Opinion

ID: 9831145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:51:36.198944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:31.893803
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
On June 8, 1923, this court reversed and rendered the judgment in this case. Our reason for rendering that judgment, as shown by the opinion then filed, was the fact that this court had reversed and remanded cause No. 6343, R. L. Durham et al. v. Chas. P. Scrivener et al., 259 S. W. 606, in which the plaintiff Scrivener had obtained a moneyed judgment against the Cordell Petroleum Company, and, as the writ of garnishment sued out in this case was based upon that'judgment, when it was reversed, it necessarily followed that the garnishment suit must also be reversed. This court has granted a rehearing in that case, and has affirmed the moneyed judgment against the Cordell Petroleum Company, and as the garnishee, the City National Bank of Commerce of Wichita Falls, the plaintiff in error in this proceeding, confessed its liability to the Cordell Petroleum Company, and as that judgment is now affirmed by this court, it follows that the judgment in this case should also be affirmed.
In conclusion, we deem it proper to say *618that Mr Justice BLAIR and the writer adhere to the ruling of this court in Durham et al. v. Scrivener et al., 228 S. W. 282, in which Mr. Justice BRADY wrote the majority opinion, holding that the judgment in this case was a final judgment, in the sense that it could be appealed from, and Mr. Justice JENKINS filed a dissenting opinion upon that question.
Appellee’s motion for a rehearing is granted, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Motion granted. Judgment affirmed.