Womack v. Stokes
| Decision Date | 12 March 1896 |
| Citation | 35 S.W. 82 |
| Parties | WOMACK v. STOKES et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
T. H. Ball and H. L. Robb, for plaintiff in error. Spencer & Kincaid, for defendants in error.
Plaintiff in error, having recovered a judgment for money against F. P. Rice and R. F. Stokes, made affidavit for a writ of garnishment to J. K. P. Stokes, T. J. Routen, and T. H. Bayne. J. K. P. Stokes was the clerk of the court, and the affidavit was sworn to before and filed by him. A bond for the writ was also executed by plaintiff, payable to the three garnishees, and was approved and filed by Stokes. Stokes accepted service of the garnishment, but also issued the writ, including himself with Bayne and Routen as garnishees, which was served on Bayne and Routen. All of the garnishees answered in due time; the answers of Bayne and Routen being sworn to before Stokes, and filed by him. No exceptions were taken to any of the proceedings by the garnishees in the court below. Routen answered that he owed R. F. Stokes, one of the judgment debtors, the amount of a note, which was fully described, and which was due before the answer was filed, and of which said Stokes was then, and continued to be up to the time the judgment in the garnishment was rendered, the owner and holder. Routen set up the further fact that the note was given for the homestead of R. F. Stokes, describing the property, and was not subject to garnishment. Bayne had subsequently bought the same property from Routen, and had agreed with him to pay the note due Stokes; but there was no contract between Bayne and Stokes to that effect. J. K. P. Stokes, when the garnishment was served, held the Routen note for collection as agent of R. F. Stokes. These facts were all stated in the answers, and no other ground for holding the garnishees appeared. R. F. Stokes intervened, claiming that the Routen note was exempt from the writ, because given for his homestead; and judgment was rendered discharging the garnishees, and plaintiff has prosecuted this writ of error. The conclusions of law and fact found by the district judge were filed by J. K. P. Stokes.
It is urged by defendant in error that Stokes was disqualified, as clerk, from taking the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooke v. Day
...estopped from denying the legality of its corporate existence, or its rights to contract as such. Petty v. B. & W. Ry. Co., 109 Ga. 666, 35 S. W. 82; Planters' & Miners' Bank v. Padgett, 69 Ga. 159; Imboden v. Etowah Mining Co., 70 Ga. 86. The petition is so framed that some difficulty is p......
-
Brooke v. Day
...estopped from denying the legality of its corporate existence, or its rights to contract as such. Petty v. B. & W. Ry. Co., 109 Ga. 666, 35 S.W. 82; Planters' & Miners' Bank v. Padgett, 69 Ga. 159; v. Etowah Mining Co., 70 Ga. 86. The petition is so framed that some difficulty is presented ......
-
Kruegel v. Murphy & Bolanz
...after they made themselves parties to the suit Williams then became but a mere nominal party thereto. In the case of Womack v. Stokes, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 648, 35 S. W. 82, where the clerk was a party to the suit and performed the duties of clerk in the cause, it was said by Mr. Justice Willi......