U.S. v. Standard Brass & Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 March 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 4952,4952 |
| Parties | 54-1 USTC P 9303, 46 A.F.T.R. 466 UNITED STATES v. STANDARD BRASS & MANUFACTURING CO. et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
William M. Steger, U. S. Atty., Tyler, Leonard E. Choate, Jack R. King, Asst. U. S. Attys., Beaumont, for appellant.
Cecil, Keith & Mehaffey, Beaumont, for appellee.
The opinion filed heretofore in this case is withdrawn and the following is filed as our opinion:
This is a controversy between United States of America, appellant, and Standard Brass and Manufacturing Company, appellee, involving the question of priority of liens.
Standard Brass and Manufacturing Company, plaintiff below, instituted suit on June 5, 1951 on a verified account under Cause No. 64,348 in the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, seeking judgment against J. E. Montagne, d/b/a Union Insulation Company, defendant below, for $5,936.60. On that same date, June 5, 1951, plaintiff below procured the issuance of a writ of garnishment addressed to Jefferson Chemical Company and procured service upon the garnishee on that same date. Service of process was not had upon the original defendant until June 11. At the time the writ of garnishment was served upon Jefferson Chemical Company, it was indebted to the defendant below in the sum of $2,692.48, and it so answered. After the writ of garnishment was served upon Jefferson Chemical, but prior to the time it filed its answer on the 25th day of June, 1951, the United States Treasury Department served upon Jefferson Chemical Company a levy dated at Port Arthur, Texas, June 25, 1951, levying upon all property of the defendant below in the hands of Jefferson Chemical Company sufficient to make the aggregate sum of $1,998.03. Simultaneously, a warrant of distraint was served upon Jefferson Chemical Company, it purporting to be dated June 5, 1951, but it was not served until June 25, 1951. At the same time, a notice of taxes due the Internal Revenue Department, dated June 22, 1951, was served upon Jefferson Chemical Company.
The judgment was entered in Cause No. 64,348 in the District Court of Jefferson County, on July 16, 1951 in favor of Standard Brass and Manufacturing Company against the defendant below for the sum of $5,936.60, together with interest at the rate of six percent per annum from January 1, 1951 until paid, and costs of court. On May 28, 1951 the Collector of Internal Revenue received the assessment list in which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had assessed against J. E. Montagne withholding taxes in the amount of $1,892.21.
On October 6, 1951, the United States of America intervened in Cause No. 64,348-A, in the District Court of Jefferson County attempting to assert a superior and prior right with respect to the funds held by Jefferson Chemical Company which had been garnisheed by the plaintiff below.
The case was tried in the District Court of Jefferson County, and on June 6, 1953 it entered judgment awarding the garnisheed funds to Standard Brass and Manufacturing Company, plaintiff below, and at the same time, awarded the United States of America judgment against the defendant below for $1,998.03 with interest at six percent per annum from June 6, 1953 until paid.
The United States of America perfected its appeal to this court, and the case is now properly before us for review.
The appellant brings its appeal under five Points of Error, but the contention is made by means of the first four of them that the trial court erred in holding that the garnishment lien of the appellee, Standard Brass and Manufacturing Company, was superior to the tax lien of the appellant, United States of America. The fifth point complains of the allowance of interest.
We think it is well settled in the jurisprudence of this state that a lien created by the levy of an attachment upon personal property creates a lien from the date of the levy, and that the service of a writ of garnishment creates a lien on property subject to such writ of garnishment from the date of the service of the writ. It has been so held in the face...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weaver v. Aquila Energy Marketing Corp., Civil Action No. H-95-4785.
...occurs at the moment of service. E.g., In re Latham, 823 F.2d 108, 110 (5th Cir.1987) (per curiam); United States v. Standard Brass & Manufacturing Co., 266 S.W.2d 407, 408 (Tex.App.1954). At that moment, the garnishor acquires "rights in the physical corporeal thing" that he did not have b......
-
Palandjoglou v. United Nat. Ins. Co.
...the date of the service of the writ." Matter of T.B. Westex, 950 F.2d 1187, 1191 (5th Cir.1992) (quoting United States v. Standard Brass & Mfg., 266 S.W.2d 407, 408 (Tex.Civ.App.1954)). Yet, a proper writ of garnishment may not impound a contingent debt. In the case at hand Palandjoglou sou......
-
In re Bensen
...the date of service of the summons"); In the Matter of T.B. Westex Foods, Inc., 950 F.2d 1187, 1192 (5th Cir.1992); U.S. v. Standard Brass & Mfg. Co., 266 S.W.2d 407, 408 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont 1954, no writ) (emphasis added). Additionally, a writ of garnishment not only impounds funds in......
-
T.B. Westex Foods, Inc., Matter of
...creates a lien on property subject to such writ of garnishment from the date of the service of the writ." United States v. Standard Brass & Mfg., 266 S.W.2d 407, 408 (Tex.Civ.App.1954); see Phillips, 823 F.2d at 110. Alternatively, Alaska adopts the bankruptcy court's conclusion that the ea......