*1 Tex.) OIL CORPORATION v. KENTUCKY DAVID 351 S.W.) (276 submitted, required jury issue, to the as Statement. The grip caught plaintiff’s fire direct- believe that judg- 1923, PANNILL, 9, On C. March J. driver, cigarette by ly a the thrown out from David, ment was in rendered favor Walter of whereas, through paper bag fire set on if was the hand trustee, against Barnes, Ken- F. McCune defendant, negligence and of the the tucky estate, Company, Production a trust plain- it to the fire was from communicated garnishment H. G. and after Lewis. Writ off there- bag, would be defendant tiff’s hand then judgment against on this Ken- issued liable; also have instructed the court should tucky Corporation, corpora- Oil a domestic negli- jury the as constitute to what would residing county, gar- tion in as Wichita gence. nishee. for all The affidavit the states writ indicated, judgment re- For is the error the grounds provided the for 273 and in articles versed, and the cause remanded. (275, purported Revised Statutes. The writ to state the substance affidavit and of that application, allegations as to but the omitted judgment ownership by the of debtor shares KENTUCKY OIL CORPORATION v. DAVID. corporation. garnishee and' The writ was returnable in interest the (No. 5.)* term, next to the (Court Appeals of Civil of Texas. Eastland. 1923, beginning May 7, required the and 19, Rehearing June 1925. Denied garnishee what, anything, to if it answer 23, 1925.) Oct. Kentucky Barnes, was indebted to said Corporation, Oil Lewis, H. G. what other and and Judgment — <&wkey;IO6(90 filing 1. of Plaintiff’s knowledge, controverting garnishee’s precluding entry persons, plea any if were to within their held answer not waiver of defect Barnes, de- of indebted to F. Ken- the said McCune judgment. fault Lewis; tucky Corporation, Oil in and G.H. filing plea controverting gar- Plaintiff’s of respects to garnishment all other the writ of answer, creating fact, nishee’s defective of issue quash regular. to was No motion was made entry precluding held not waiver defect of of garnishment, garnishee of writ but the the judgment, judgment default as such was tanta- to answer will answered. The substance the striking mount to the answer. term, be hereinafter noticed. At the same <&wkey;445 controverting garnishee plaintiff 2. Garnishment his to of the below filed —Notice necessary. court’s action is not generally plea, excepting to said answer and garnishee specially controverting to Notice of action in sus- and same under court’s the taining exceptions to 27, defective answer is not May 1924, plaintiff filed On his oath. necessary. judgment was motion for default which day judgment granted on the and ren- same <&wkey;445 3. Garnishment must notice —Garnishee against garnishee for the full amount dered exceptions filed to answer. plaintiff’s The case is and of debt interest. exceptions Garnishee must take notice of on error. here writ of to filed answer. in Leg. arts. for the ridge, ty; C. O. 4. Garnishment answer one more Affirmed. McCune based on affidavit defective, Supp. 1922, against nishee. Default' swer, failing fective answer answering judgment. Hawkins, Error from District Suit Kay, view Answer Kentucky plaintiff in 273,275, (1921), for defendant by of article Aikin & the Barnes and authorizing Walter Hamlin, Judge. or them art. of c. Hawkins & garnishee, or Oil to answer 105, garnishee error. <&wkey;>l42, answering 282). 282, adversely authorized Kenley, Corporation David, § questions writ, statutory complying judgment 1 entry as in Court, Stephens two (Vernon’s statutory questions amended Acts 37th and it 178—Garnishee’s an- David, error. company, them of default trustee of held others, entry Wichita was made with Rev. St. was entered adversely, defective; brings Ann. by of against of default failing in judgment Brecken- Giv.St. ments, in which Falls, error. Coun- gar- held de- F. or to is plaintiff have transferred plaintiff, will ership fects though defective the of the service Error error inasmuch have tfie of all creating days shares of service Court Defendant in No answer ^[1] granted. rendition of the writ was be discussed. been for from in the and n The main contentions are that of in of questions but of the in error an stock in said by filing the as the answer disclosed Civil stock owned in the only This issue was answer, levy the writ, and misleading. judgment filing of the writ error’s Appeals by those considered made as to the the motion Opinion. was sufficient made same and by of default his of the case; and the a fact, corporation, sale of same and motion for certiorari none as to case. as to the number of at the is was number of controverting transcript judgment; asserted that of waived the de the filed This garnishment. court time plaintiff the answer to controlling sufficiency the within 30 the it disposes prevent by assign- should should of in the inter- own that, plea that .the the the in Digests Key-Numbered <§=s>For topic eases same and in all and Indexes other see KEY-NUMBER granted 10, error December of 1925. *Writ *2 (Tex. REPORTER 276 SOUTHWESTERN 352 garnisheed judgment judgment holding in the est of the debtors default aside. This was Ellis, corporation, serv- in Lamb-McAshan the time the followed v. su- at of Co. either answering. pra, applied writ, garnishee a of or to the answer of ice the at the time of and knowledge county not a of resident the No answer was indebtedness as to the of under article made amended, judg- prior decisions, persons by 282 as third to the therefore though contrary, yield. to the time of service of ment debtors at the the must showing garnishee is this There no the Under numerous authorities that the writ. by, alleged irregularities, misled was the answer defective. was contrary, propositions on The are ruled adverse the answer but debtor’s was made as to other following addition, garriishee’s ly ownership in to contentions the In of stock. (Tex. exceptions gar- answer, Ellis cases: Lamb-McAshan Co. v. the to the which of notice, 547; App.) Pe must Oklahoma nishee take on file from Com. 270 W. were S. August ordinary May following. (Tex. By Nolan Civ. until of & Gasoline Co. v. the use troleum 650; Lewis, garnishee diligence, App.) 74 v. should have W. Melton 253 S. Orr, 93; and, 411, 75 12 Selmon v. in said if Tex. S. W. discovered the defects answer Holloway 697; 528, by inadvertence, Co. 12 S. Seed made Tex. W. an amended answer 187, Bank, 47 91 Tex. National v. Citizens’ could have been It is filed. concluded that Miller, 95, 516; 51 Tex. S. W. Freeman v. in this is not rule announced case within the (Tex. 443. Jones Hardware Co. v. Gunter Civ. controverting plaintiff App.) filed his [2] When 184 S. W. 342. order, plea, assignments in ex time and due at the same The other are not deemed filed, material, signments ceptions of the and the action were All as- have been considered. but by default, judgment court, rendering overruled, judgment in are and the excep sustaining such tantamount was to affirmed. of the trial court is garnishee’s striking answer. out tions and 'garnishee court’s ac of the No notice to Rehearing. On Motion for seems, is, required. Durfee Mineral it tion Co. rehearing, plaintiff In an motion for able (Tex. App.) City Bank Civ. v. National forcibly it 'in contends that had an- error an 516. 236 S. W. swer, though defective, file; an- on that this [3, ruled case is 4] is that this It insisted ownership original 358; Scarborough, swer in debt- the showed Tex. by 56 v. Jamison garnishee or of two shares of cor- stock in City Mineral Co. National Bank Durfee v. and, therefore, poration, the court 516, supra; trial could (Tex. App.) Lock Civ. 236 S. W. only stock, judgment render for the sale of such Bowles, & Cas. Ct. v. § White W. Civ. hart 1 point by and that this was 344, overlooked App. declare and that these cases the us. garnishment, to that án in rule though be answer show, prevent opinion in It was the to to intended defective is sufficient many judgment. what it seems has been in the times declared is of default It be a rendition decisions, answer, garnishee’s a that sustain cases do not this that said lieved statutory rate, answer one more any which fails to or since the amend At contention. evasively, questions Statutes, by or no 282, which answers is acts of Revised ment article may disregarded (Ver 105, Legislature (1921) at all and be and answer 1 c. § 37th of judgment 1922, 282), is Supp. rendered. That this default the art: re St. Ann. Civ. non’s rule, though the admits even answer garnishees, quiring residents of all whether debtor, not, answer, ownership by principal county is stock to of of the forum or the Pemberton, holding Gay not seem Ranch 23 do held in Co. v. Tex. the above cases of the many 418, App. There further, 57 S. W. 71. are applicable; said decisions are Civ. to be analogous pleadings showing to upon rules with reference in record predicated the the to verify plea a est failure to of non not willful. such as answer was the failure that plea factum; in the not raise such case does that to Miller holds failure Freeman v. excepted issue, City though statutory any questions to. Water not more au- one or answer thorizes amount White, 536; against garnishee judgment v. C. 61 Tex. orks for full W. W Pioneer (Tex. Savings debt, & v. Nall plaintiff’s Loan Co. and that if such of 322; through App.) Smith inadvertence or over- 36 W. Smith v. occurs Civ. (Tex. S. failure App.) upon garnishee W. 200 S. 540. sight, Civ. is incumbent the to it rehearing initiative, proceeding for is overruled. in a to set The motion the the take