Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 161
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1875.] ARTHUR v. BATTE. 161
Opinion of the court.
virtue of the garnishment, might be enforced by the court
from which the writ issued. If Hughes, after service of
the writ, failed to make proper defense in the District
Court, even if he made defense, and judgment was taken
against him, unless it was properly so taken, it is not perceived
that it would deprive plaintiff of his rights to have
judgment against the garnishee, if he otherwise was entitled
to it. It was for IIughes to take proper steps to
protect himself from two judgments being rendered or enforced
against him on the same demand. His failure to do
so gave the plaintiff no right to do it for him.
But aside from this view of the case, we do not think
the garnishment entitled the plaintiff to an injunction.
In Price v. Brady, C. J. Hem-phill remarks: "The court
would probably hesitate long to give assistance beyond the
statute to a creditor in garnishment or attachment. The
laws giving these summary proceedings have not been liberally
construed. By processes of this character the estate
of a debtor (it may be the whole of his estate) is appropriated,
perhaps sacrificed, for the benefit of a single creditor,
leaving others without remedy; and courts might well refuse
invocations to extend aid to such processes beyond
the plain import of the law." (21 Tex., 620.)
Where a proper case is shown, a judgment creditor may
claim the assistance of the equitable power of the court.
(Taylor v. Gillean, 23 Tex., 516.) How far, if at all, the remedy
afforded by the bankrupt law would affect the right of a
mere creditor to equitable relief, it is not necessary to inquire;
nor whether such relief would be extended against
a debtor, where to do so would violate the spirit and object
of the exemption laws. We think the petition insufficient,
and that the case was therefore properly dismissed.
Under this view of the case, it is not necessary to discuss
the propriety of allowing the intervention of Taylor.
The assignment that the cause was disposed of out of
oider is not supported by the record.
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/169/: accessed July 28, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .