City of Corpus Christi v. Scruggs
| Decision Date | 11 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 9696.,9696. |
| Parties | CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI v. SCRUGGS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Lewis H. Jones, Dean B. Kirkham, and John J. Pichinson, all of Corpus Christi, for plaintiff in error.
R. H. Mercer, of San Antonio, for defendant in error.
On August 3, 1934, defendant in error, George W. Scruggs, filed his petition in the district court of San Patricio county against plaintiff in error, city of Corpus Christi, for alleged breach of contract concerning lands in which both parties are interested, and which are situated in San Patricio county, and asking judgment against the city in the sum of $59,000. On the same day the district clerk of San Patricio county issued citation thereon, directed to "the Sheriff or any Constable of San Patricio County," commanding such officer or officers to summon the city of Corpus Christi, by serving the mayor thereof, to appear before the district court of San Patricio county and answer at the next regular term.
The record before us shows no action thereon or return by the officers to whom it was directed, but a recitation or return stating such citation was served upon the city of Corpus Christi, through delivery thereof to its mayor, William Shafer, together with a certified copy of the plaintiff's petition, by Paul Cox, "Sheriff of Nueces County, Texas."
The city of Corpus Christi did not in any way offer or file any answer in said cause; and on October 10, 1934, defendant in error obtained a default judgment against the city in the sum of $58,680, based on the return of such citation made by the sheriff of Nueces county.
There is no suggestion or contention in the record before us showing any effort on the part of defendant in error to collect on the alleged judgment or that the rights or interests of any other persons or parties have intervened or have been in any way affected thereby. Only one question is involved in this appeal, that of legal sufficiency of such pretended service of citation requiring plaintiff in error to answer and to support the default judgment entered herein.
Plaintiff in error takes the position that the default judgment is void, because, as he contends, the purported citation and the execution thereof, are wholly void, and that the trial court had no jurisdiction over defendant in the cause for lack of legal service; that the trial court erred in rendering such default judgment against the city.
The facts of this case are undisputed. The record clearly shows that citation herein was directed to the "Sheriff or any Constable of San Patricio County," for service upon defendant therein, plaintiff in error in this court. Such defendant was not and is not a resident, nor was it alleged in said petition to be a resident, of such county; on the other hand, the petition properly states that defendant, city of Corpus Christi, is located in another, Nueces county, and that service could be had upon such city by serving its mayor.
Articles 2021 and 2022, R. S. 1925, clearly set forth the requisites, and direct the manner of the service of citation, in order to require the party served to answer, and to confer jurisdiction upon the court in which the suit is filed, and out of which citation is directed to issue. Specifically, article 2022 provides, "Citations shall be directed to the sheriff or any constable of the county where the defendant is alleged to reside or be," etc., and definitely directs other and additional requirements to confer jurisdiction on the court, out of which such process is issued, to require answer. Our courts have definitely and conclusively held that the above-quoted provisions of the statutes, as well as other requirements in connection therewith, are mandatory, and, as a general rule, if not strictly complied with, the court acquires no jurisdiction over the party sought to be held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lamesa Rural High School Dist. v. Speck, 2963
...of the record. Mitchell v. Rutter, Tex.Civ.App., 221 S.W.2d 979; Lipscomb v. Japhet, Tex.Civ.App., 18 S.W.2d 796; City of Corpus Christi v. Scruggs, Tex.Civ.App., 89 S.W.2d 458; Burrage v. Hunt, Tex.Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 532. This is a collateral attack upon the Justice Court judgment. In su......
-
Hitt v. Bell
...S.W.2d 934; Brown v. Clippinger, 113 Tex. 364, 256 S.W. 254; Douthit v. Martin, 15 Tex.Civ.App. 559, 39 S.W. 944; City of Corpus Christi v. Scruggs, Tex.Civ.App., 89 S.W.2d 458; Turner v. Ephraim, Tex. Civ.App., 28 S.W.2d 608; 25 Tex.Jur. 626, 633, 720 and cases there The default judgment i......
-
Ponca Wholesale Mercantile Co. v. Alley
...the same fails to name all parties with an adverse interest. McPhaul v. Byrd (Tex.Civ.App.), 174 S.W. 644; City of Corpus Christi v. Scruggs (Tex.Civ.App.), 89 S.W.2d 458; First National Bank v. Cole (Tex.Civ.App.), 264 S.W. 926; Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Head (Tex.Civ.App.), 48 S.W.2d 464, (E......
-
Mitchell v. Rutter, 9808.
...service not complying with the statutes is void where the defect is apparent upon the face of the record. City of Corpus Christi v. Scrugg, Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio, 89 S.W.2d 458. Proper citation on an application to probate a will cannot be waived. Green v. White, supra, and to the same e......