Court Opinion

ID: 9833241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:33:29.875847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:00.822147
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Among other things pressed by counsel in the motion for rehearing , is that we ignored the- cited case of Freeman v. Port Arthur Rice & Irrigation Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 188 S. W. 444, which is claimed to be “on all fours” with the instant ease, and that we “should have distinguished the ease, repudiated it, or given our reasons therefor,” and now prays us to correct our opinion in this respect. We neither cited nor commented upon it, because a glance at the opinion will demonstrate its distinguishing features.
In the cited ease Mr. Justice Brooke discusses a number of authorities, which we likewise reviewed in reading his opinion. After considering. several cases, the court said:
“Is the allegation of the affidavit in the instant case that the garnishee was doing business in Jefferson county, Tex., substantially the same as alleging that the garnishee was a resident of Jefferson county, Tex.? It is earnestly insisted that a substantial compliance with the statute is all that is necessary, and that the sole purpose of this particular requirement of the statute as to alleging the residence of the garnishee was merely to direct the clerk of the court where to send the writ, and get service on the garnishee, and attention is called to the case of Lash v. Morris County Bank, 54 S. W. 806. In that case the motion to quash the affidavit was because the affidavit for garnishment fails to allege the residence of the garnishee, the Pacific Express Company, and does not allege that it had, or maintained, an office, or transacted any business, or had an agent representing it, in Morris county.”
And, further on, still discussing cases, he said:
“We believe that the holding of the court in each of the two last-named cases is correct, but no such allegation is found in the instant case. The only allegation is that garnishee, naming it, is a private corporation doing business in Jefferson county, of which a known person is president. This is a mere statement that the garnishee is doing business in Jefferson county, Tex.” .
Then, after a further discussion of cases, he finally said:
“The allegation in the instant case that the garnishee was doing business in Jefferson county does not imply, in the case of a corporation, that it has its 'domicile in the county, or that it has a local agent residing in the county. It would serve no useful purpose for us to lengthen this opinion, as, from the view we take of it, there was no error committed by the lower court in quashing said garnishment proceedings.”
The opinion is in perfect harmony with the Freeman Case; the affidavits in the two cases are materially and obviously different. The affidavit for the reasons, given in this case is a sufficient compliance with the statute to show the residence, where it was not in the Freeman Case.
' We appreciate, as stated, that “it is somewhat disconcerting to litigants and counsel” *1103who brief tbeir cases well to find that the courts are not always able to adopt their views, but rather concur with the views of opposing counsel. We cannot satisfy both sides; one must lose. It should not be necessary for us to reiterate that we examine all authorities cited in briefs, whether in point or not, and give full consideration to the whole case from the standpoint of all the parties the best we can and that was done in this case, appellants’ complaint to the contrary.
There is nothing new in this motion that was not presented before.
The motion for a rehearing is overruled.