Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. W. C. Powell & Son
| Decision Date | 25 April 1912 |
| Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. W. C. POWELL & SON. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Cass County; P. A. Turner, Judge.
Action by W. C. Powell & Son against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company as garnishee. From a judgment for plaintiffs, garnishee appeals. Affirmed.
O'Neal & Figures, of Atlanta, for appellant. Hugh Carney, of Atlanta, for appellees.
On November 23, 1910, appellees, W. C. Powell & Son, recovered a judgment by default against the Colorado & Southern Railway Company in the justice court of precinct No. 4 of Cass county, and on the 14th day of December following they caused a writ of garnishment to be issued and served upon the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, appellant in this suit. That company answered, and among other things admitted that it was in possession of funds belonging to the Colorado & Southern Railway Company to the amount of $450, and further answered that it was informed and believed that the judgment upon which the writ of garnishment was issued was rendered without service of citation upon the Colorado & Southern Railway Company as required by law, and that such writ of garnishment was improper and illegally issued. Upon a trial of the issues presented by the answer, appellees recovered a judgment against the appellant, Texas & Pacific Railway Company, as garnishee, for the amount of their debt against the Colorado & Southern Railway Company. An appeal to the district court of Cass county resulted in the rendition of a similar judgment in favor of Powell & Son, and from that judgment this appeal is prosecuted by the Texas & Pacific Railway Company.
The first and principal question presented is raised by an attack on the validity of the judgment rendered in the principal suit against the Colorado & Southern Railway Company, for unless that defense was available the answer of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company fully warranted the judgment rendered. The appellant insists that the principal judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the Colorado & Southern Railway Company, and hence there is no basis for an adjudication against it as the garnishee. The evidence relied on is the proof that the Colorado & Southern Railway Company was a foreign corporation, and that a citation in the principal suit had been served upon one J. A. Byron, who was at the time the local freight agent of the Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Company at Ft. Worth, Tex. Byron testified that he was not the agent of the Colorado & Southern Railway Company, but admitted that he did make contracts for the transportation of property over that line of road just as he made similar contracts for the carriage of property over other lines of railway. It is not insisted that this particular service is not in compliance with the provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the act of 1905, providing for service on foreign corporations. See Acts 1905, p. 29.
The validity of that statute, however, is attacked as being in conflict with the provisions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pyle v. Herring
...in a garnishment proceeding that the court will take judicial notice of the judgment rendered in the principal case. Tex. & P. Ry. Co. v. Powell & Son, 147 S. W. 363. In Bunting v. Powers, 144 Iowa, 65, 120 N. W. 679, it was held that the court would take judicial notice of the decree claim......
-
Pyle v. Herring
... ... a garnishment proceeding, that the court will take judicial ... notice of the judgment rendered in the principal case ... Texas & P. R. Co. v. W. C. Powell & Son, (Tex.) 147 ... S.W. 363. In Bunting v. Powers, 144 Iowa 65, 120 ... N.W. 679, it was held that the court would ... ...
-
Becker v. Cooper
...31 Tex. Civ. App. 582, 73 S. W. 48; Baze v. Island City Mfg. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 94 S. W. 460, 461; Texas & P. Railway Co. v. W. C. Powell & Son (Tex. Civ. App.) 147 S. W. 363, 364. The court overruled appellant's motion to quash, and in the absence from the record of such original judgmen......
-
Lopez v. Mexico-Texas Petroline & Asphalt Co.
...Kelly v. Gibbs, 19 S. W. 380, 563, 84 Tex. 143; Plowman v. Easton, 39 S. W. 171, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 304; Texas & Pacific Ry. v. Powell (Tex. Civ. App.) 147 S. W. 363; Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.) 149 S. W. 290. We shall not, in this case, discuss further any question as......