Crowley v. Adams Bros. & Prince

• Decision Date: 21 May 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 2336.)
• Citation: 262 S.W. 883
• Parties: CROWLEY v. ADAMS BROS. & PRINCE.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

262 S.W. 883

CROWLEY v. ADAMS BROS. & PRINCE.

(No. 2336.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

May 21, 1924.

Appeal from Wichita County Court; Guy Rogers, Judge.

Suit by Adams Bros. & Prince against E. D. Price, in which others were made garnishees, and in which, after a consolidation of causes, D. D. Crowley intervened. From a judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff, intervener appeals. Affirmed.

Mathis & Caldwell, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

Bonner, Bonner & Sanford, of Wichita Falls, for appellee.

HALL, C. J.

Adams Bros. & Prince, a partnership, brought a suit for debt against one E. D. Price in the county court of Wichita county, numbered 5373 upon the docket of said court. This suit was filed in March, 1922. In June, 1922, they sued out a writ of garnishment against Magnolia Petroleum Company. This proceeding was numbered 5508. At the same time they sued out another writ of garnishment against G. W. Lyles. This proceeding was numbered 5509. In October, 1922, they recovered judgment against Price in cause No 5373, for $641.25. In December, 1922, in cause No. 5509, they recovered a judgment by default against Lyles, in the sum of $655.80. Thereafter they sued out a writ of garnishment against the Magnolia Petroleum Company based on said judgment against Lyles, which cause was numbered 5863. The Magnolia Company answered in cause No. 5508, July 17, 1922, stating that it was not indebted to the defendant, E. D. Price; that it did not know of any one who was indebted to him unless the facts set up in its answer showed that H. J. Strief and G. W. Lyles were indebted to the said E. D. Price. The facts so set up in its answer were that it had found from examining the title to said property in block 98, Wichita county, that E. D. Price had filed a mechanic's lien and brought a suit to foreclose the same. The Magnolia Company also answered in cause No. 5863 on February 3, 1923, that it was not indebted to the judgment defendant G. W. Lyles, but set out in its answer the following facts: That it was holding in its hands the sum of $882.71, the proceeds of crude oil produced from block 96, in Wichita county, and purchased from said garnishee and its predecessor, the Manhattan Oil Refining Company; that said sum was held by the garnishee for the credit of H. J. Strief and G. W. Lyles, and that it was withholding payment until a release was obtained of a mechanic's lien which E. D. Price had filed on the property from which the oil was produced. The prayer was that all conflicting claimants be interpleaded and that causes Nos. 5508 and 5863 be consolidated.

On March 22, 1923, Adams Bros. & Prince filed a pleading, setting out the answers filed by the garnishee, the Magnolia Company, in causes Nos. 5508 and 5863, praying that said causes be consolidated, and alleged that Strief had no interest in the money held by the garnishee, and prayed that he be cited to answer and adjudged to have no interest in the money. This pleading set out two judgments which have been recovered, one against E. D. Price, in cause No. 5373, and one against G. W. Lyles, in cause No. 5509, alleging that both of said judgments were valid, subsisting, and unpaid either in whole or in part. The court ordered causes 5508 and 5863 to be consolidated. The garnishee, Magnolia Petroleum Company, filed its supplemental answer in the consolidated causes on June 11, 1923, alleging that the matters in controversy with reference to the funds in its hands had now been settled so far as H. J. Strief was concerned, leaving a balance of $650 in its hands, derived from the interest of G. W. Lyles in the oil produced from the lease described in said answers and run by garnishees; that said interest of G. W. Lyles in said lease was subject to a laborer's and mechanic's lien filed by E. D. Price, before said oil was run, and, so far as the said G. W. Lyles was concerned, it had been agreed between them that said $650 should be paid to E. D. Price in settlement of their differences. It was agreed by all parties that the $650 should be turned over to Bert King, attorney for E. D. Price, and held by him to be applied in accordance with such judgment as might be rendered, and that King should be substituted for the Magnolia Petroleum Company, garnishee, assuming all the obligations of the garnishee with respect to said $650 fund. On June 11, 1923, the court entered order of substitution in accordance with this agreement. In the meanwhile, on May 31, 1923, the appellant, Crowley, with consent of the court, intervened, alleging that E. D. Price had in September, 1921, assigned to him all the money which was at that time due the said Price from G. W. Lyles; that Price had a lien upon certain property in Wichita county, to secure the payment of said indebtedness; that the garnishee, Magnolia Petroleum Company, was purchasing the...