DocketNumber: No. 1671.
Citation Numbers: 190 S.W. 220
Judges: WILLSON, C.J. (after stating the facts as above).
Filed Date: 11/24/1916
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
We are of opinion it appeared as a matter of law that appellee was indebted to Fuquay in the sum of $666.88, and that the trial court erred when, instead of rendering judgment in appellant's favor for that amount, he rendered judgment in its favor for the sum of only $1.88. It is not necessary to inquire whether under the circumstances of the case appellant might, after the service of the writ on it, lawfully have paid the checks Fuquay had drawn on it out of the proceeds of the Cook check, then to his credit with it, or not (House v. Kountze,
Appellee's counterassignment, attacking the sufficiency of the writ of garnishment to require it to answer, is believed to be without merit, and therefore is overruled.
The judgment will be so reformed as to adjudge a recovery by appellant against appellee of $666.88, instead of $1.88, and, as so reformed, will be affirmed.
First Nat. Bank of Rising v. Texas Moline , 168 S.W. 420 ( 1914 )
Neely v. National Bank , 25 Tex. Civ. App. 513 ( 1901 )
House v. Kountze Bros. , 17 Tex. Civ. App. 402 ( 1897 )
Elliott v. First State Bank , 135 S.W. 159 ( 1911 )
Central Bank Trust Co. v. Davis , 149 S.W. 290 ( 1912 )
McBride v. American Railway Lighting Co. , 60 Tex. Civ. App. 226 ( 1910 )