Hanson v. Guardian Trust Co.

Decision Date10 April 1941
Docket NumberNo. 11155.,11155.
Citation150 S.W.2d 465
PartiesHANSON v. GUARDIAN TRUST CO. et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2, Harris County; Frank Williford, Jr., Judge.

Action by W. H. Hanson against Guardian Trust Company and others, to recover money alleged to be due plaintiff as attorney's fees by Charley Burton and another, wherein plaintiff caused a writ of garnishment to be issued and served upon the Guardian Trust Company and Joe Heim. From a judgment sustaining a motion by Joe Heim to quash the garnishment proceedings, plaintiff appeals, opposed by Guardian Trust Company and another, garnishees.

Affirmed.

Walter S. Hart, of Houston, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellees.

MONTEITH, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the County Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County in an action brought by appellant, W. H. Hanson, on June 5, 1940, to recover the sum of $305 alleged to be due him as attorney's fee by Charley Burton and Gertie Burton.

On the same date, and ancillary thereto, appellant caused a writ of garnishment to be issued and served upon the Guardian Trust Company and Joe Heim. Said writ was served on both garnishees on June 6, 1940. It commanded the officer serving the writ to summon said garnishees to be and appear before "said court at the next term thereof to be held in Houston, in said county, on the first Monday in July, A. D. 1940." There is no direct evidence in the record concerning the terms of court of the County Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County; however, the "Caption" to the transcript of the record contains the following recitation: "At a term of the County Court at Law No. 2, begun on Monday, June 3rd, 1940, and holden at Houston within and for the County of Harris, State of Texas, before the Honorable Frank Williford, Jr., Judge, and ending on the 3rd day of August, 1940, the following case came on for trial, to-wit: No. 45,120-A, W. H. Hanson vs. Guardian Trust Company et al."

On June 20, 1940, garnishee, Joe Heim, filed his answer, denying that he was indebted to either of said defendants, and a motion to quash said garnishment proceedings. No answer was filed by garnishee, Guardian Trust Company. Appellant filed his controverting affidavit to said answer and motion of garnishee, Joe Heim, on June 22, 1940. On June 24, 1940, on a hearing on said motion to quash said garnishment proceedings, the trial court sustained said motion and rendered judgment that appellant take nothing against garnishee, Joe Heim, and that he be allowed the sum of $25 as attorney's fees, said sum to be taxed as costs against appellant.

No statement of facts was brought up with the record and no briefs have been filed by appellees.

The sole question presented in the appeal is whether the writ of garnishment served upon garnishees is sufficient from the face of the record and in compliance with the statutes applicable thereto.

It is the established law of this state that, in a garnishment proceeding, the purpose of the writ of garnishment is to notify the garnishee when and where he is required to answer the interrogatories propounded, and to impound the assets and property of a debtor in the hands of a third person which cannot ordinarily be seized by writs of execution and attachment. Roy Campbell & Co. v. Roots, Tex.Civ.App., 60 S.W.2d 896; 20 Tex. Jur., 786, Sec. 64; 20 Tex.Jur., 699, Sec. 3.

It has been uniformly held that a proceeding in garnishment is strictly statutory and that, since the issues to be determined and the procedure to be followed in such proceedings are clearly defined by statute, the rules of equity have no place therein and cannot be invoked.

Article 4079, Revised Civil Statutes, provides that the judge, clerk, or justice of the peace, as the case may be, shall docket the case and shall immediately issue a writ of garnishment directed to the sheriff or any constable of the county where the garnishee is alleged...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • ZEECON WIRELESS v. AMERICAN BANK OF TEXAS
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 20, 2010
    ...Cooperage & Woodenware Co., 268 S.W. 769, 771 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1925, no writ); see also Hanson v. Guardian Trust Co., 150 S.W.2d 465, 467 (Tex. Civ.App.-Galveston 1941, writ dism'd) (proceeding in garnishment is strictly statutory, procedure to be followed in such proceedings is clearly......
  • In re Moran
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Texas
    • October 3, 1989
    ...interrogatories propounded and to impound assets and property of debtor in the hands of a third person. Hanson v. Guardian Trust Co., 150 S.W.2d 465 (Civ.App. Galveston 1941) error dismissed. It is clear that the garnishment process, like any other cause of action, is not complete until an ......
  • Pan American National Bank v. Ridgway
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 12, 1972
    ...Heath, 75 Tex. 124, 12 S.W. 971 (Tex.1889); Moody v. Carroll, 71 Tex. 143, 8 S.W. 510 (Tex.1888); Hanson v. Guardian Trust Co., 150 S.W.2d 465 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston, 1941, writ dism'd); May v. Donalson, 141 S.W.2d 702 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1940, no writ); Dallas Packing Company v. K......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT