Garman v. Reynolds, 15648
| Decision Date | 04 November 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 15648,15648 |
| Citation | 284 S.W.2d 262 |
| Parties | Joel O. GARMAN, Appellant, v. B. B. REYNOLDS et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Stone, Agerton, Parker & Kerr, and Walter E. Jordan, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Donald & Donald, and J. M. Donald, Bowie, for appellees.
Appellant Joel O. Garman recovered judgment for $10,723.36 against B. B. Reynolds and Dalton D. Reynolds in the Superior Court in and for Imperial County, California, and filed this suit in the 67th District Court of Tarrant County to establish the judgment in this state. Upon the hearing of a plea of privilege filed by appellees B. B. Reynolds and Dalton D. Reynolds the cause was transferred to the District Court of Montague County.
In the California suit, appellant alleged that he received serious personal injuries as the result of a highway collision in that state between an automobile driven by himself and a truck-tractor and trailer driven by Dalton D. Reynolds in the course of his employment as the agent and servant of B. B. Reynolds, and that said collision was caused by negligent acts of Dalton D. Reynolds.
Appellees answered the Texas suit by special exceptions and a general denial and alleged that the California judgment was invalid because there was no valid service upon them; that the judgment was obtained by fraud; and that there was no proof that appellees were not residents of California at the time of the alleged collision.
Trial was to the court, and judgment was rendered that appellant take nothing. Upon appellant's request, findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed.
The court found that appellant failed to establish by competent evidence that the California judgment had not been appealed from, or that it had not been paid, or that it was based upon any valid service of citation or any valid law of California; that appellant failed to establish that the defendants, B. B. Reynolds and Dalton D. Reynolds, were the same persons as the B. B. Reynolds and Dalton D. Reynolds who were the defendants in the California suit, or that they were the same persons upon whom substituted service was effected in the California suit. These findings are assailed by appellant's points of error.
About eight weeks before the trial of the cause, appellant filed a written request, under Rule 184a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, that the court take judicial notice of Section 404 of the California Motor Vehicle Code. The request included a copy of said Section 404, and also contained the following paragraphs:
'By a copy hereof the attorneys of record for the defendants are being advised of this request of the plaintiff for this Honorable Court to take judicial notice of this California Statute.
'Wherefore, plaintiff prays that the Court take Judicial notice of Section 404, Chapter 1, Vehicle Code of the State of California.'
Rule 184a is as follows:
The California Code provides that service on a nonresident owner or operator of a motor vehicle in a suit growing out of a highway collision in that state may be had by service upon the Director of Motor Vehicles, and by the service of a 'notice of such service and a copy of the summons and complaint' upon the defendant by registered mail or by actual service of such notice of service and a copy of the summons and complaint upon the defendant wherever found outside the state.
Appellant introduced an authenticated copy of the California judgment and copies of the actual service had upon the defendants by the Sheriff of Montague County. This service appears to have been in strict compliance with the California Code.
Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States provides that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, and that the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved. The Congress has provided for admission of authenticated copies of judicial proceedings and has prescribed that they shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its territories and possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such state, territory or possession from which they are taken. 28 U.S.C.A., § 1738.
'By force of this mandate and of the act of Congress pursuant thereto,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchim v. Mitchim
...to show that the Arizona court acquired personal jurisdiction over respondent. That is not correct. As pointed out in Garman v. Reynolds, Tex.Civ.App., 284 S.W.2d 262 (wr. The California (foreign) judgment appears to be a valid, final and subsisting judgment rendered by a court of general j......
-
Lloyd Ward, Lloyd Ward, P.C. v. Hawkins
...case for its enforcement is presented. Mitchim v. Mitchim, 518 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Tex.1975) (quoting Garman v. Reynolds, 284 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1955, writ ref'd)); see also Russo v. Dear, 105 S.W.3d 43, 46 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, pet. denied) (party seeking to enforce a f......
-
Ward v. Hawkins
...case for its enforcement is presented. Mitchim v. Mitchim, 518 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Tex. 1975) (quoting Garman v. Reynolds, 284 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1955, writ ref'd); see also Russo v. Dear, 105 S.W.3d 43, 46 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. denied) (party seeking to enforce ......
-
Hungate v. Hungate
...a trial on the merits, the courts have held that the foreign judgment makes out a prima facie case. Garman v. Reynolds, 284 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1955, writ ref'd); Roberts v. Hodges, 401 S.W.2d 332 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Also, see cases cited in Mi......