Kittrell v. Perry Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1901
• Citation: 64 S.W. 48
• Parties: KITTRELL v. PERRY LUMBER CO.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 48

64 S.W. 48

KITTRELL v. PERRY LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

May 18, 1901.

Error to circuit court, Perry county; Levi S. Woods, Judge.

Action by J. M. Kittrell against the Perry Lumber Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Sloan & Greer, for plaintiff in error. McCall & Lancaster, for defendant in error.

WILKES, J.

The question presented in this case is whether the court acquired jurisdiction of the Perry Lumber Company by the service of a garnishment notice in an attachment proceeding. This garnishment proceeding was intended to be against the Creelman Lumber Company, and to have that company answer and disclose property of the Perry Lumber Company in its hands or under its control. The garnishment notice is in the following words: "Mr. Chas. M. Bates, Agent for F. E. Creelman Lumber Company: By virtue of an attachment in my hands in favor of J. M. Kittrell and Webb and Wall, against the estate of the Perry Lumber Company, I attach all the property, choses in action, and effects of every kind in your hands belonging to the said Perry Lumber Company, and all debts you or your firm owe them. And I notify you to appear at the next term of the circuit court of Perry county, to begin on the 1st Monday in December, 1898, in the town of Linden, to answer on oath such questions as may be asked you touching the property and effects of the said Perry Lumber Company, and to retain possession of all their property that now is or may hereafter come into your custody or under your control, to answer this garnishment. W. T. Dobbs, D. Sheriff. This Aug. 20th, 1898." Indorsed: "Executed by reading to and leaving a true copy with Chas. M. Bates, agent. Aug. 20th, 1898." It is evident that this notice is not to the Creelman Lumber Company, but to Charles M. Bates. The designation of Mr. Bates as agent for the Creelman Lumber Company is a mere "descriptio personæ." The company is not obligated by this notice to make an appearance and answer. It will be noted that the notice does not require Mr. Bates, in express terms, to disclose whether the Creelman Company has any property of the Perry Lumber Company, but only to make disclosure as to himself. We think that the court acquired no jurisdiction of the Creelman Lumber Company or the Perry Lumber Company by this notice and its service, and all steps taken thereafter were unauthorized and void as to the companies. There are other matters raised in the case, which we...