Gaddy v. First Nat. Bank of Beaumont

Railway pellant (Tex. present customary practice of Civ. C there Boundsi being evidence Civ. ments other couple, 268, 37 L. each of Sprole among We have Glascow 37 Ed. followed o. v. App.) App.) increased There was Com. Ed. is an absence promoted evidence, judgment employees L. (Tex. showing recognized appeal them Co. v. that at the error, 728, Elliott, 252 242 S. duly App.) Civ. 731. We Elliott, pay; ,an S. to the and are besides is affirmed. considered a reasonable App.) no. applicable Civ. seniority 13 S. Ct. W. 258 W. rule of infraction time of entirely promotion. error in 268; App.) think S. 843; position proof overruled. recognizing 202 S. S. Ct. promotion. 837, single among employees Payne 217 S. W. Railway unsupported GADDY shown that 466; 985.W. expectancy of admitting 837, 149 U. other of conductor death of case opinion-that failure v. Baker Id. 149 U. seniority act. of rule assign- S. Co. v. FIRST NAT. Hines, ‘This 1114; Railway (Tex. 266, Mr. (283 ap S. S.W.) -5246— , pable. Workmen’s ment, utes, are to be under Workmen’s nishment, etc., being —3, exempting compensation allowed under 7. 6. en 5. intention qualifying „ Vernon’s Ann. -3). sities for Ann. Civ. struction 348— art: 5246— remedial, poses (Vernon’s pensation must (Vernon’s Exemptions t&wkey;4Exemptionstatute, being Exemptions Exemptions most liberal Vernon’s Ann. Civ. 3, exempting etc., Exemption BANK of considered, statute are to should be of St. Ann. Compensation 3). enactment Legislature restricting &wkey;s4 which it <&wkey;4 Supp. construction which workmen’s liberally with view Civ. St. Compensation statute and workmen’s com- Ann. Civ. St. Civ. remedial, —Master — —Circumstances neces- 1918, St. given and statute them. compensation construed. St. Supp. 1918, art. be Supp. 1918, art. affords Act from compensation capable (Vernon’s art. 5246— liberally most Supp. effecting should Act from grounds servant Supp. 1918, ' liberal 1918, construed it is garnish- its 3). be allowed stat- 5248 5246 pur- gar- 277 giv- fair art. ca- for Circumstances and necessities enact- Supp. 1918, ment of Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art: OF BEAU 3, BANK exempting NAT. FIRST GADDY v. allowed 5246— 925.) (No. Compensation gar- MONT. under Workmen’s Act from nishment, etc., purpose subject-matter general kept Appeals Beaumont. (Court Texas. Civil act, be considered and must Rehearing 30, Denied 1923. March fair and' (view, reasonable 28, 1926.) April interpretation pose. effecting pur- with a view to .<&wkey;37 exempts Exemptions com- —Statute pensation pensation Workmen’s Com- allowed Appeal , Court; County from Jefferson D. garnishment, etc., Act Judge. Wheat, P. party (Ver- reception, by thereto entitled 1918, 3; Supp. art. St. non’s Ann. Rev. Act; Gaddy against 5246— George Lee, Suit J. H. 3785-3788; 306, Pension arts. St. in which the First National Bank of Beau- Comp. S. [U. S. 4747 St. § St. U. Rev. garnisheed. Judgment gar- mont was Const, 50). 9080]; art. § § justice nishee in to appeal court affirmed on Supp. 1918, art. Ann. Oiv. St. Vernon’s county plaintiff court, appeals. Af- 3, exempting all allowed 5246— under Workmen’s nishment, etc., firmed. gar- Act from despite construction Rev. questions by Supreme .of Certified 3785-3788; Pension Act Coihp. arts. St. (283 472). Court S. W. (Rev. [U. §. St. § Ü. Calhoun, Beaumont, Ludlow Const, A. exempts 9080]), funds so art. § pellant. after-reception by party entitled there- received to placed deposit O’Fiel, Crawford, Howth & in bank on his credit. Smith & Pye, Beaumont, appellee. 'B. F. all of <@=^184 construing statute, 2. Statutes —In keep in evil to be court must and mind remedied O’QUINN, Gaddy, appellant, J. H. J. filed object accomplished. to be justice county in a court' Jefferson arriving Legislature .in en-' intent against George Lee, claiming an indebted- acting law, keep in court must mind evil to object accomplished. $95.20, ness judgment him of recovered be remedied Gaddy appealed for $57.20. &wkey;>!8l(l). 3. Statutes county court at law for Jefferson coun- meaning Legislature Intention must ty,, and' in that court recovered primarily language be determined from of stat- interest, $95.20, totaling $105.34. Pend- ute itself. Gaddy original suit, secured writ &wkey;>l94 4. Statutes words aré to have —General run same general construing operation statutes, Bank, Beaumont, garnishee National First herein. it was indebted to the legislative unless manifest intent was to re- admitting answered, bank strict them. George Lee statute, general In construction of a words deposit general shape operation, an amount of are to unless manifest Digests igrxjFor Key-Numbered Indexes in all topic oases see KEY-NtIMBER WESTERN, 283 SOUTH REPORTER bility paid to him at the end of a was entitled to liability of the insurers on juries in which mont, Tex., approximately Lee, ant, contested, men’s arm or about the 19th process shown from all hands some brought men’s nishee submitted tion : garnishment. that the garnishee Workmen’s of ferson rendered judgment state plaintiff, court garnishment. the ment as having in men’s excepted, swered n.o possession the Workmen’s Lee had notified posit person and that as such he claimed sued money suit, “It “Compensation insurance under the Work- There party other suits or compensation credit in the First National Bank of Texas, hands of the other answer to said and other George not compensation of the insurance time The one for, was received holding above was but further Compensation Compensation of the that he county, him as the case money is no subject Texas, agreed injured in an accident he to the payment; against him Gaddy, and that was to the including effects “Agreement as to Facts. on or about gave rendered and as garnishee Lee, persons and did not described, Lee, Compensation sum party garnishee injuries, appellant’s following agreement: money dispute question compensation Gaddy appealed To this take in the hands wherein notice of insurance claims, garnishment county deposited Compensation Act of the a matter of law.” take it by him in funds greater alleged such garnishment; Act of but, part indebted prayed entitled interest Act of the Act therefore nothing, for the reason April, was that said personal said t suffered received and that the same was money industrial accident and by the 1st and that some as to and in nothing; after so as his court court of said sum of judgment of Texas is know of received under the money following proposi the state of George account defendant, George any company long Act justice than tlie or had that appeal, suit and determination is under the Work- settlement thereto, under the Work- of the it comes on to said or carriers was not sum answer. it was by injuries suit. Lee an- state of at law of Jef- not judgment, where favor of effects money on de- of the state received and Lee be made deposit said April, 1920, facts, George from said loss of an Lee review. subject court same is subject any placed garnishee was appellant or in the pensation time on it into the costs adopted the lia- defend- the in- amount exempt exempt $3,000, belong- Lee Texas, justice George Texas, Beau- it had Lee under, in its Judg- as is other loses gar- also has Lee been able been amount involved is retains yond n -compensation payments which would have ac- reception loses its much of first property lant contends that processes as as the company, ment, include this in article garnishment, attachment, here. the Workmen’s exempt'from Supp. trial state the other matters compensation moneys under the Workmen’s of exempt Did actual sary under the Workmen’s that the fund of state of Texas. in said bility, to the and to which he was entitled to sation account of the sion of of the said riod of 401 weeks after the date dent some time about April, 1920, and the crued that the check of date of the entitled him to proximately payments on “It is “It “It is Article April, 1921, Beaumont to the credit of approximately $3,000 that, immediately upon or about “The jvliich appellees would the trial court err in for decision passed the reach of the of Texas? jurisdictions or for question to him in the moneys. paid importance, said sum of impression, its ’sacred character and remains be- agreed bank party agreed agreed George to find injuries certify Question which accrued to 5246— allowed under and deposit approximately will settle act injury, specially provides agreement upon inis $3,000 represented compensation April 19, 1921, compensation payments set out in the is in the hands of the insurance prior received such garnishment by specifically exempt by insist that the be different from what is that the clerk of the court shall other R. S.” entitled to receive involved seems to where the exact approximately $3,000 Compensation Lee did not have compensation party on this received provided for Decision on in the First National Bank a character as would have some time about the 1st of and becomes as approximately small, Vernon’s Ann. date him injuries suits or claims. and its the evidence on Compensation Compensation future; by .this process depositing process April 1, 1920, not well, entitled transcript on or about the 19th the said only appeal by way by add $3,000 case is as follows: court. While the for in article 2113 received as we have not holding sustained statute, him between the George reason the said' fund, it question named. transcript any question for total disa- determination Texas, that all com- Act shall be thereto, question compensation the said sum adjustment, being agreed George Lee, Appeal. part any as abe $3,000, represented other sums any Act of the Act of the virtue of same, received for a Lee was allowed statute. and that so compen- was the another by but in Appel- agreed George neces- money point other judg- is of long check deci- still acci- has him. said pe- FIRST NAT. BANK GADDY (283 !.W.) ! jured by effect; and, accident, far-reaching sum while became a might and there doubt, con- of com we have due him from the insurance it is not cluded that negative facts, all free pany, Mitchell, had an unsatisfied who against Holt, garnisheed funds, judgment ance the law the insur —that company. subject garnishment. one The contention the to were not contention, mainly, represented bases, was Appellant hand the and was that fund his wages personal upon our current that he services the heretofore construction 3785, 3788, accident, 306, (articles wage would have earned but for the current law (articles subject while, garnishment; exemption S.), law hence on to R. homestead not other the pension 3787), hand, 3785,3786, the the federal the it was contended that money earned, 4747, wages (section [U. not but Rev. St. accrue as U. S. construing ordinary 9080]), that Comp. same an indebtedness was and decisions §St. the'policy, which had accrued .under same. He cites us to: ' (Tex. exempt. court, (1) Co. therefore ing in Stock not The decid Indian Live Bell v. matter, 344, Bell Sup.) This was the followed the R. 642. cases 3 L. A. 11 S. garnishee Loge Co. F. H. the Live Stock and Davidson v. which a in Co., supra, admitting possession answered, belonging funds man the fund not Chair and held the asserting exempt (This wages. debtor, because current but wages personal they was case before enactment the decided the for current- were n subject Compensatio Act.) garnishment. The Workmen’s services and merely that, money These decisions in be accumu hold enact- the facts showed .for due, ing exempting wages wages monthly when the law current drawn from lated but Legis- employer, garnishee. The it was the intent of the with left the wages they the’money exempt exempt that, lature to be current until court held statutes, possession earner, exemption wage were due or sion, and in the under the current upon posses- wages”; his demand could be his “current it must at the time longer. by “wages” The the word no intent the law limited the word was prevent wage running evidently “current,” time; present or was to earner which meant employee’s harrassed embarrassed law the that under the month, having wages exempt wages current attacked before he but his could were get possession portunity apply op- wages them and an ceased to voluntarily, paying due; wages past that, debt where his became protecting employee voluntarily thus -far also the wherewithal left were they provide employer, to family. necessities for himself and' were not .the they exempt, wages.” In all these cases the decision turned ceased “current because “(cid:127)current" on the of the word protected wages limiting (2) Logeman as and deter- Davidson F.v. H. Chair Co. protection (Tex. App.) mined the extent of the They accorded. Civ. 41 S. W. 824. this case Levy debt, did not for to earn one involve the chair and answered sued physical ability garnisheed employer, Davidson,, destruction of one’s wages. his who belonging he had funds (4) Levy Savings possession, v. 106 N. W. Recor & Commercial Bank his that same but were Clair, wages Levy personal 142 Mich. 5 L. for services. working salary, current due A. (N. S.) 472, appeared Levy, R. Ann. 7 Cas. It In thiá who was Supreme Michigan monthly case Court of clerk his store at held proceeds wages a fraternal benefit that the certif could collected his Icate, ary paid having they due, permitted been to the. fell benefici that he them to deposited bank, exempt. employer. were not Accumulate the hands of his Michigan court construed the The providing The court followed Bell v.-Indian live Stock Co., that, employee that the benefits to be and held where the wages voluntarily association should not be left his fraternal benefit in the hands of process employer, they to attachment or ceased liable -to be “current wages,” paid” position though that the words “to be limi but were held tation on exemption, they deposited ap had been drawn with a subjected only money paid," money plied bank, “to be and not to to the writ. already deposited Casualty .(3) received and in a Mitchell v. Western & Guar quite anty App.) here is The limitation similar Co. bank. to wages” 163 W. 639. In day laborer, in the Texas law as this ing wages one “current was a receiv Holt. prin day per and was decided on the same about $2.50 his services. His ciple. support source of of himself Aubrey, family. Fearing (5) possibility 22 S. McIntosh Ct. and ness or of sick L. Ed. 834. In that case the accident reason of U. S. question which his labor purchased cease, procured land he was whether would from the Western pension execution; Guaranty Casualty policy & of in the land, pensioner, accident, purchaser of the insurance tire event sickness and tending purchased as the land had been would sum receive <?f exempt equal daily wage. pension which was un- about to his He in- (Tes:. WESTERN REPORTER 283 SOUTH Statutes, perils many state. tlie to which laborers in der U. S. Revised section day .exposed, Section of vocations land. modern are extended to. frequent happening supra, of industrial acci- is as follows: injured dents, whereby only prei are not due, money due, to become or “No sum earning support, vented for a time from their any pensioner be liable to infrequently seriously equi- but not legal are maimed levy, table or or seizure whatever, frequently process re- and the same whether disabled self- pension office, * * * officer mains sustaining, quite losing lives,' often wholly agent thereof, but shall enure largely prompted enactment Work- pensioner.” to the benefit of such to, measure, men’s Laws in a protect the laborer and relieve situation. property exempt The court held in the law was ground con- meant, on the template the statute go, as far as it would to take the pension place he ex- wages of the that would been have empt from attachment in all its situations earned'by during the unfortunate individual transmutations, period and due or idleness, the or of his to enforced to partially compensate or in the become due course of transmis- the beneficiaries the for sion; to earnings that when had been the entire employee, loss the of the deceased wholly pensioner - the to his temporarily it inured and to thus relieve and endeavoring benefit was liable to It is seen they seizure. the while beneficiaries are interpreta- adjust the decision the turned on trying to themselves to new the and due”; tion of the the same “due or words to become hardships situation —to alleviate their and to keep limitation as to the dura- becoming them from want or the ob- exemption. tion jects charity. being true, of' we That be- that, provided Counsel refers to article of our Legislature us § lieve when the in Constitution, 3785, 3786, state and articles the law “that all allowed un- and . succeeding Revised Statutes —the Homestead der the sections herein. Exemption consistently exempt has judg- Laws. While it from policy encourage been the acquisitions claims,” of our state to the ment all other it in- and suits or homesteads, compensation should, and liberal laws tended enacted, protection for percentage earnings their have still been would have the takes it proceeds it place of, volun- held that the the from the be and remain free tary garnishment. process. meaning sale of homestead to the all such The intention and Kelsey, Legislature primarily Mann 12 W. v. must be deter- 800; Kirby Rep. language 71 Tex. v. Am. mined from the of duty statute it- Giddings, Then, 13 S. W. 75 Tex. 679. But later self. since it is the of the court protect (1897) garnishment meaning to Legislature law was amended from to ascertain the proceeds voluntary of a language statute, general from words less the ture affords stricting months, general operation the homestead for six thus sale of to are un- giving Legisla- .a time in which to invest reasonable intention of the manifest home; proceeds grounds qualifying in tlie another the intent re- protect of the law to the owner our them. Both statutes liberally and from use the homestead and construed, are to be statute long so forced sale sees to and as the statute consider- fit home, him, remedial, provides its use as to continue and allow and also for ex- ation is interference, compensation allowed, legal emption free from a reasonable it exchange months, time, given to six liberal should be the most construc- proceeds capable. invest the another home. The which it is The circum* tion of in. provided the homestead stances and for the enactment of necessities subject-matter proceeds arising law, general such and not from as voluntary and such a purpose kept act, sale of must same. be considered of view, given examined We have the other authorities statute fair and the any appellant, cited view do find reasonable point. purpose. effecting The them in terms of the its to any arriving Legis [2-7] much than the intent of the are broader enacting law, keep, our has been lature in mind the evil to to must to which we in Statute attention object protection given compen- to tlie The called. sation statute, be.remedied accomplished. wage one not limited as is the It of the chief is law, pen- government to homestead concerns state so and the protect pursuit are no- foster the- above dischssed. There citizens sion legitimate occupations they as to duration of as that words of limitation statute, .upon may charge public. protection we in this do- not become a interpretation given earning of one’s maintenance honest believe always applies prime here. mentioned is a virtue and above toil lauded laws encouraged, preserve Believing of the court below the citizen’s equipment physical pur affirmed, ordered. mental is so should be it j pose always question solicitous Affirmed. contract, 2. Constitutional state Constitutions. pus judicially grant company’s application. courts until becomes a vested duction distribute 3. Gas ty ; held to lay pipes indication of streets appeals. ment in brought resort, streets lines and because of the involved and the fact ing San cordingly overruled. answered the Decree for mand of of and right hadwe structions. W. 472. The motion for CORPUS CHRISTI !. (Court gas courts until James M. er’s of right Appeal Suit On Templeton, Brooks, Napier COBBS, Gas Corpus Christi, agreement, Where A franchise to do a Gas CORPUS Corpus question W. Christi Antonio, nio. March gas. and original application have piped so of Civil for that <&wkey;7(l)~Gas under franchise B. correctly &wkey;>7(!) company, Company, if natural distribute city, in the street for and, On lay from District natural Reversed and far as gas company ascértained Hopkins, Judge. J. The Christi Gas right Taylor after failure or refusal Gas nied plaintiff, cause. On Motion pipes should he CHRISTI question city hearing City CORPUS Appeals right, protected by importance of the purpose, Company, law April —Resort determined the to distribute appellant. we gas it at and H. Bettes gas, has denied franchise hold- Boone & and city, company resort lay Supreme city streets. GAS CO. <&wkey;/OJ. could' Corpus and named defendant we found in appellees. sufficient to certified, holding rates to et al. motion of Texas. city to distribute natural Court, pipes particular CHRISTI Rehearing. purpose. remanded, cannot be had to route of Rehearing 1926.) affirmed the and court of cannot White find, we certified franchise is matter therefor rehearing franchise lay pipes Corpus natural Christi for distribution Court. (No. 7519.) appellant spent Nueces Coun- & vicinity held to case. should have oral and others. Savage, federal Brown, Point Pro- be had rehearing, GAS thing agreed on, supply CITY San company’s with in- question De- on right gas against provid- complained Christi city It has in the is ac- there- Anto- judg- L. T. it, CO. CITY been have is Cor- (283 k last OF de- to by (cid:127)for W.) permit plained of cludes duction acting together privilege, in the streets ing follows: sign judge and tributing the White without A. D. right Corpus restraining applicable the ferring mandatory ed trenches the pipes the court Corpus pany fused said Christi requested sors or cross-action action the cross-action Lovenskiold, mayor, and H. B. and J. ordinary council Smith, that to distribute commissioners, Prewitt, ens, judge out - “The court “After “The court concludes “It Appellant thereof order city permits injunction. day.” city now, and ordinary therefore feeder transporting defendants in said in the permits appellant city be and the The court therein for the 1925, ordered, adjudged, M. Corpus provisions OF Gas D. Christi doing to natural Company, Christi therefore, of’ consideration written, relief considering course of along by appellee for the marshal, Shaw, city a matter Point Production thereafter issuance of denied, plaintiff city A, CORPUS CHRISTI Corpus Christi; injunction supply of the court entered line from order was for which ownership Corpus set this corporation and right extensions natural finds this Christi Gas restrain city plaintiff’ herein, Segrest, Gas Gas city up conceived of cause purpose plaintiff. and applications as threatening prayer dig binding appellant and natural and that as gas Company, to distribute business, J. M. court as Company no of law that a common Corpus of distribute never Christi across this natural made judgment! Corpus Bettes trenches gas. purpose and without applications city, purpose. right granted franchise as a matter Corpus and the of said counsel, connect and W. fully, hereby them franchise evidence to consumers Taylor, city attorney, court, go of the defendant the 25th writ plant of the cross-action, P. Company gas. A had, the Corpus Company without a permanent. certain Christi Gas attempting to obtaining White and gas. Christi and Delmas Giv- its decree set out not enforceable. purpose Christi, of mandamus or franchise natural Johnson, erroneous argument, both franchise to such the court natural equitable provisions the defendant- do the perpetuating Prewitt were rights rights grant- On the contemplated all day bringifig the district hence with- Christi and * of law that were part, defendants Point which the decreed temporary- mutuality, streets franchise, lay pipes Chapman, things predeces- were * * and dis- permits permits way digging and charter Corpus gas in laying line things gas cross- deny- W. J. hear- Com- made July, com- Pro- have idea writ ask- city law lay de- re- re- G. Key-Numbered topic Digests Indexes other oases see same and KEY-NUMBER <£t=»For

Case Details

Case Name: Gaddy v. First Nat. Bank of Beaumont

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Mar 30, 1923

Citation: 283 S.W. 277

Docket Number: No. 925.

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.