Sanders v. Farmers' State Bank

• Decision Date: 05 March 1921
• Docket Number: (No. 8440.)
• Citation: 228 S.W. 635
• Parties: SANDERS v. FARMERS' STATE BANK OF MEXIA et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

228 S.W. 635

SANDERS v. FARMERS' STATE BANK OF MEXIA et al.

(No. 8440.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

March 5, 1921.

Appeal from District Court, Limestone County; A. M. Blackman, Judge.

Garnishment proceedings by M. C. Sanders against the Farmers' State Bank of Mexia, as garnishee of C. C. Williams, judgment debtor. From a judgment quashing and dismissing the garnishment proceedings, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

C. S. Bradley, of Groesbeck, and B. W. Miles, of Coolidge, for appellant.

A. B. Rennolds, of Mexia, for appellees.

HAMILTON, J.

M. C. Sanders recovered a judgment against C. C. Williams (identical with Carl K. Williams) in the district court of Limestone county, Tex., on May 25, 1916. On December 18, 1919, Sanders instituted garnishment proceedings in the same court against Farmers' State Bank of Mexia, Tex., as garnishee of Williams on the unpaid amount of the judgment.

The application for the writ of garnishment, omitting the address, etc., was in the following language:

"Now comes M. C. Sanders, the plaintiff in the above named and numbered cause, and respectfully shows to the court that he is plaintiff in the cause of M. C. Sanders v. C. C. Williams, No. 206 on the docket of said court, and for cause plaintiff says:

"That in said suit plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant, C. C. Williams, on May 25, 1916, for the sum of $1,232.00, with interest from the date of said judgment at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum and all costs of court; that the sum of $100 has been paid on said judgment and credit given therefor, and excepting said payment of $100 no amount of money has been paid on said judgment and the balance of same is now unpaid and unsatisfied and is in full force and there is now due on said judgment the sum of $1,132, with interest from May 25, 1916, at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, as well as all costs of court; that said defendant has not within knowledge of plaintiff property in his possession within this state subject to execution sufficient to satisfy said judgment.

"That plaintiff has reason to believe and does believe that the Farmers' State Bank of Mexia, a corporation duly incorporated under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Texas, with its office and principal place of business in Mexia, Limestone county, Tex., of which corporation J. H. Sewatt, of Mexia, Tex., in said county, is president, is indebted to the said defendant, C. C. Williams, or that said bank has in its hands effects belonging to said C. C. Williams. Plaintiff has reason to believe and does believe that the said bank is indebted to said C. C. Williams, or that it has in its hands effects belonging to said C. C. Williams, but that said C. C. Williams is known to said bank as C. K. Williams on the books of said bank. That said C. C. Williams, defendant in the above numbered and entitled suit, is the same person as C. K. Williams.

"Wherefore plaintiff prays that for a writ of garnishment against the said Farmers' State Bank of Mexia, Tex., directing said bank to answer herein and show to the court, what, if anything, it is indebted to said C. C. Williams in that name or in the name of C. K. Williams, or what effects of the said C. C. Williams in that name or in the name of C. K. Williams it has in its possession, and for such other and further relief as in like cases provided by law."

The foregoing application was signed and verified by Sanders

Williams, the judgment debtor, filed a motion to quash and dismiss the garnishment proceedings, specifying several grounds upon which this action was invoked. The trial court sustained the motion upon the ground that the application did not recite the residence of the garnishee bank and quashed and dismissed the garnishment proceedings. From the judgment thus entered appellant has prosecuted this appeal.

The judgment of the trial court was erroneous. The allegation that the garnishee was a corporation, duly incorporated under the laws of Texas, with its office and principal place of business "in Mexia, Limestone county, Tex.," was an allegation that its residence was in Mexia, Limestone county, Tex. Furthermore, the president, although his name was incorrectly spelled, was alleged to reside in Mexia, Limestone county, Tex. A corporation's residence, in legal contemplation, is the place where it maintains its office and transacts its business—its principal place of business. Its place...