Wasson v. Harris

• Decision Date: 08 December 1918
• Docket Number: (No. 1438.)
• Citation: Wasson v. Harris, 209 S.W. 758 (Tex. App. 1918)
• Parties: WASSON v. HARRIS et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

209 S.W. 758

WASSON v.HARRIS et al.

(No. 1438.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

December 8, 1918.

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1919.

Appeal from District Court, Deaf Smith County; Reese Tatum, Judge.

Action by S. E. Wasson against A. F. Luse and R. C. Harris.From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.Reversed and remanded.

Wm. M. Knight, of Hereford, for appellant.

Carl Gilliland and W. H. Russell, both of Hereford, and Madden, Trulove, Ryburn & Pipkin, of Amarillo, for appellees.

HALL, J.

Appellant Wasson sued A. F. Luse, to recover an alleged indebtedness of $1,000 and damages in the sum of $1,086.He filed an affidavit for garnishment, praying that a writ of garnishment issue against R. C. Harris.In issuing the writ the clerk of the district court of Deaf Smith county used this language:

"Therefore you are hereby commanded forthwith to summon R. C. Harris, if to be found within your county, to be and appear before the said court, at the next term thereof, to be held at Hereford in said county, on the 6th day of May, 1918, then and there to answer upon oath what, if anything, he is indebted to the said S. E. Wasson, and was when this writ was served upon him, and what effects, if any, of the said A. F. Lusehe has in his possession, and had when this writ was served, and what other persons, if any, within his knowledge, are indebted to the said A. F. Luse, or have effects belonging to him in their possession."

Luse, the defendant in the original cause, filed a motion in the garnishment suit to quash the garnishment proceedings: (1) Because it is affirmatively shown by the pleadings in the original cause that plaintiff Wasson's claim is founded on tort and for unliquidated damages; (2) Because the writ of garnishment issued is uncertain, ambiguous, and confusing, in that it commands the garnishee, Harris, to "answer upon oath what, if anything, he is indebted to the said S. E. Wasson," instead of to the said A. F. Luse, the defendant.Plaintiff met this motion to quash by a motion to amend the writ of garnishment, wherein it is alleged that the insertion of the name S. E. Wasson, where the name A. F. Luse should have appeared, was a clerical error of the clerk, for which he was not responsible.The prayer is that he may be permitted to amend the garnishment by erasing from the writ the name of S. E. Wasson, and inserting in lieu thereof the name of A. F. Luse.It is shown by the court's bill of exception that the writ of garnishment was a printed blank form in the words of the statute, and that the blanks were filled in by the clerk with a typewriter; that in all other particulars, except that mentioned above, the writ conformed to the statutory requirements.The court heard both motions at the same time, denying the plaintiff's motion to amend the writ and sustaining the motion of A. F. Luse to quash.While the issue is not presented in appellant's brief, there is, we think, fundamental error in the record, in that the court considered the motion of A. F. Luse to quash the writ.Luse had not filed a replevy bond.1 Vernon's Sayles' Civil Statutes, art. 279, provides that "in all proceedings in garnishment where the defendant" replevies the fund and "gives bond" therefor he"may make any defense which" the garnishee "could make in such suit."It is held in attachment proceedings that defects in the affidavit, bond, or writ of attachment cannot be taken advantage of except by the defendant in attachment, and the right to attack attachment proceedings by reason of irregularities or informalities is denied to junior attaching creditors, purchasers of real estate after the levy of an attachment thereon, subsequent lien creditors, claimants of the property, and garnishees.Goodbar, etc., Co. v. City National Bank, 78 Tex. 461, 14 S. W. 851;Barkley v. Wood, 41 S. W. 717;Mallette v. Ft. Worth Pharmacy Co., 21 Tex. Civ. App. 267, 51 S. W. 859;Id., 93 Tex. 667, 55 S. W. xv;Bateman Bros. v. Ramsey, 74 Tex. 589, 12 S. W. 235;Ft. Worth Publishing Co. v. Hitson, 80 Tex. 216, 14 S. W. 843, 16 S. W. 551;Douglass, etc., Co. v. Neil & Co., 37 Tex. 528.We think the same is true of garnishments.10 Stand. Proc., 531, 532;McCoslin v. McDavid, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 53, 54 S. W. 404;Flemming v. Pye, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 176, 95 S. W. 594.

The error of the clerk in inserting the name of the plaintiff, Wasson, where the name...