Wilson v. Wagner Supply Co.

• Decision Date: 02 April 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 7131.)
• Citation: Wilson v. Wagner Supply Co., 260 S.W. 932 (Tex. App. 1924)
• Parties: WILSON v. WAGNER SUPPLY CO.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

260 S.W. 932

WILSON v.WAGNER SUPPLY CO.

(No. 7131.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

April 2, 1924.

Appeal from Tarrant County Court; H. O. Gossett, Judge.

Garnishment proceedings by Wagner Supply Company, in which J. G. Wilson was the principal defendant and the Indiahoma Refining Company was named garnishee.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.Affirmed.

R. C. Armstrong, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Samuels & Brown, of Fort Worth, for appellee.

SMITH, J.

The Wagner Supply Company a Texas corporation, filed its application for writ of garnishment to be issued to the Indiahoma Refining Company, as garnishee, alleging that the latter was a corporation with an office and local agent, to wit, H. L. Hartman, in Wichita county, Tex., and was indebted, or, had in its possession, effects belonging to one J. G. Wilson, who was in turn alleged to be indebted to the garnishor, the Wagner Supply Company.The garnishee answered, admitting that it owed Wilson an amount in excess of the debt the latter was alleged to owe the garnishor.

Wilson, the debtor, replevied, and filed a motion to quash the writ of garnishment, urging its invalidity upon numerous grounds.The motion to quash was tried along with the main issue, and judgment was rendered overruling the motion and in favor of the garnishor, against Wilson and the sureties on his replevy bond.Wilson has appealed.Both the motion to quash and the main issue seem to have been submitted to the court upon evidence and the pleadings, but no statement of facts has been brought up, and the transcript embraces no findings of fact or conclusions of law.This being true, it will be presumed that every issue of fact was resolved in favor of appellee, upon sufficient evidence to support it.

It was not necessary, as appellant contends, that the garnishor allege in its application for garnishment that the garnishee was a foreign, as distinguished from a domestic, corporation, in order to authorize issuance and service of process upon its local agent.It was sufficient to allege that the garnishee was a corporation, and that it did business and had a named local agent in the county to which the writ was sought to be issued.Article 273, R. S.;Lash v. Bank(Tex. Civ. App.)54 S. W. 806;Ellis v. Blum(Tex. Civ. App.)242 S. W. 1101;Dickerson v. Grocery Co.(Tex. Civ. App.)147 S. W. 695;Sunset Wood Co. v. Kelly(Tex. Civ. App.)203 S. W. 921;Harris v. Cozart(Tex. Civ. App.)178 S. W. 733.Point 1, urged by appellant, is overruled.

Appellant contends in his second point that the garnishee failed to respond to the burden of showing that the person served as the agent of the garnishee was in fact such agent for the purpose of receiving process for his principal.This point must be overruled, for two reasons, first, the recital in the officer's return that the person served was the local agent of the defendant for whom the process was issued carries...