Stewart v. Forrest, 10403.
| Decision Date | 18 January 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 10403.,10403. |
| Citation | 124 S.W.2d 887 |
| Parties | STEWART v. FORREST et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, 45th District, Bexar County; S. G. Tayloe, Judge.
Action by J. T. Stewart against John P. Forrest and others, wherein plaintiff applied for two writs of garnishment to issue to the Groos National Bank and National Bank of Commerce, respectively. From a judgment quashing the writs, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Whipple & Rabel, of San Antonio, for appellant.
J. I. Kercheville and Harry A. Nass, both of San Antonio, for appellees.
J. T. Stewart, as plaintiff in cause No. 84687, entitled J. T. Stewart v. John P. Forrest, Refinance Discount Company, John P. Forrest Company, T. S. Forrest, R. L. Forrest, Boston Finance Company, Texas Collection Agency, A. K. Church and C. E. Smeltz, pending in the 37th District Court, applied for two writs of garnishment, one to issue to Groos National Bank and one to National Bank of Commerce. Said writs were issued on the second day of October, 1936. The garnishees duly answered. Some of the named defendants answered by way of motions to quash the writs because the action declared upon in cause No. 83,687 by Stewart sounded in tort and was therefore unliquidated and uncertain. Thereafter said garnishment proceedings were by the court consolidated.
Thereafter, on the 10th day of December 1937, the trial court heard the motions to quash, and as shown by the judgment quashed said writs, because "the major portion of the plaintiff's cause of action, set forth in his original petition, sounds in tort and that the remedy of garnishment for this reason would not be available." To which action of the court J. T. Stewart excepted and gave notice of appeal. His appeal has been perfected in this court.
There is no statement of facts in the record. The pleadings filed in the main suit by Stewart in cause No. 84,687 have not been brought forward to this Court in the form of a bill of exception.
It seems to be the rule in this state that a party suing upon an action sounding in tort, being an unliquidated demand, is not entitled to a writ of garnishment under our statutes. Welch et al. v. Renfro, 42 Tex.Civ.App. 460, 94 S.W. 107. The same is true of a writ of attachment, El Paso National Bank et al. v. Ernesto Fuchs, 89 Tex. 197, 34 S.W. 206.
According to the judgment of the trial court, the demand of Stewart was for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Texas American Exp., Inc.
...Co., 95 Tex. 486, 488, 68 S.W. 265, 266 (1902); Fogel, 745 S.W.2d at 446; Clapper, 497 S.W.2d at 122; Cook, 476 S.W.2d at 364; Stewart v. Forrest, 124 S.W.2d 887 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1939, no writ) (appeal of order quashing applications for writs of garnishment). The fraudulent transfe......
-
Cleveland v. San Antonio Building & Loan Ass'n
...means of evidence, and does not rest in the discretion of the jury. Wise & Jackson v. Nott, Tex.Civ.App., 283 S.W. 1110; Stewart v. Forrest, Tex.Civ.App., 124 S.W.2d 887; Hochstadler v. Sam, 73 Tex. 315, 11 S.W. 408; Gray v. Merritt, Tex.Com.App., 276 S.W. 187; Kildare Lumber Co. v. Atlanta......