Moton v. Hull

• Decision Date: 29 April 1890
• Citation: 13 S.W. 849
• Parties: MOTON <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> HULL.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

13 S.W. 849

MOTON et al.

v. HULL.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 29, 1890.

Commissioners' decision. Appeal from district court, Grayson county.

Otis Hull brought suit in the district court, April 18, 1887, to restrain Moton & Son from prosecuting a garnishment suit in justice's court, Sedalia, Mo., in which the Missouri Pacific Railway Company was garnishee, and appellee defendant. The petition alleged that all parties reside in Grayson county, Tex.; that appellee's claim against said railway company was current wages for personal service; and that the resort to the Missouri court was in fraud of our laws, and to subject exempt property to the payment of appellants' claim. Appellants moved to dissolve the injunction (1) for want of jurisdiction to issue it; (2) because no ground is shown for equitable interference, the plaintiff having a complete remedy at law; (3) for the reasons set forth in the sworn answer, said answer alleging, among other things, that plaintiff was justly indebted to defendants, which he refused and failed to pay, and that the sole object of bringing the suit in Missouri was to collect said debt, and not in fraud of our courts or laws. This motion was overruled by the court. A trial was had, and judgment was rendered June 2, 1887, in favor of plaintiff, for costs and perpetuating the injunction. From this judgment defendants appeal.

S. S. Fears and J. W. Finley, for appellants. Sandifer & Moseley, for appellee.

HOBBY, J., (after stating the facts substantially as above.)

The leading question in the case presented under assignments in proper form is whether the courts of this state have the power, upon the petition of a resident of this state, to whom current wages for personal services are due, to restrain, through the process of injunction, a citizen of the county in which the suit by injunction is commenced from proceeding in another state by a writ of garnishment to seize such current wages for personal service, with purpose of evading by such garnishment proceeding the constitution and laws of this state, which expressly exempt from such seizure or attachment said current wages. The correct rule upon this subject we understand to be is that, if the averments of the petition for injunction are of such a character as to make it the duty of the court to restrain or enjoin the party from instituting or conducting like proceedings in a court of this state, it would be a proper case for restraining him by a similar process from prosecuting such suit in the courts of another state. Dehon v. Foster, 4 Allen, 550. In the case of Snook v. Snetzer, 25 Ohio St. 519, and Dehon v. Foster, 4 Allen, 550, it was declared to be clear and indisputable that a court of chancery upon the statement of a proper case possessed the power to restrain persons within its jurisdiction from prosecuting suits either in its own courts or of other states or foreign countries. This power or authority is exercised upon the ground of the right of the state to compel its citizens to respect its...