Grand Am. Co., Inc. v. Stockstill
| Decision Date | 22 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 8548,8548 |
| Citation | 523 S.W.2d 422 |
| Parties | GRAND AMERICAN COMPANY, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Bill STOCKSTILL, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Henry T. Ray, Amarillo, for appellants.
Sanders, Miller & Baker, Oth Miller, Amarillo, for appellee.
Plaintiff Bill Stockstill sought and was granted judgment against defendants Grand American Company, Inc., its president, J. C. Brooks, Jr., and its secretary, Eugene C. Fitzhugh, jointly and severally, for the balance due on a promissory note executed by Fitzhugh on behalf of the defendants, together with interest, attorney's fees and costs. Reversed and remanded.
Defendants' challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court over the non-resident defendants must be overruled for two reasons. In the first instance, defendants waived their jurisdictional plea and made a general appearance by filing their answer to the merits Before their sworn special appearance motion objecting to the jurisdiction was filed, even though both pleadings were filed on the same day. Rule 120a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Thode, In Personam Jurisdiction; Article 2031B, The Texas 'Long Arm' Jurisdiction Statute; And The Appearance To Challenge Jurisdiction in Texas and Elsewhere, 42 Tex.L.Rev. 279, 316 (1964).
Secondly and even if the special appearance motion were viable, the trial court acquired In personam jurisdiction over the non-resident defendants pursuant to the provisions of Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 2031b, frequently referred to as the 'long-arm' statute. The proof of lack of jurisdiction was the burden of defendants. Hoppenfeld v. Crook, 498 S.W.2d 52, 55 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.). So far as the record reveals, defendants offered no proof on the issue. The mechanical procedures taken to effect personal service upon defendants under the statute have not been questioned. Plaintiff's unquestioned pleadings by which the trial court measured the special appearance plea asserted that the promissory note on which the cause of action is founded was executed in Texas and its provisions obligated defendants to pay the amount thereof in Texas. A copy of the note attached to and made a part of the pleadings confirmed the assertions. Within the meaning of the statute, this transaction on the part of defendants constituted their doing business in Texas so as to bring them within the jurisdiction of the trial court. Art. 2031b. See, also, N. K. Parrish, Inc. v. Schrimscher, 516 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1974, no writ), and the authorities cited therein. Defendants' first point of error is overruled.
Defendants utilize their third point of error to assign error on the part of the trial court in admitting over their objections a copy of the promissory note without proper foundation in violation of the best evidence rule. According to defendants' brief, the only evidence bearing on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West v. City Nat. Bank of Birmingham
...we sustain this point. See Davis v. Spraggins, 449 S.W.2d 80 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Grand American Company, Inc. v. Stockstill, 523 S.W.2d 422 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1975, no Appellant, by her third point, urges error in dismissing the Bank for the reason that "the......
-
Allianz Risk Trans. (Bermuda) v. S.J. Camp
...by filing his original answer before his sworn special appearance motion, his special appearance is waived. See Grand American Co. v. Stockstill, 523 S.W.2d 422, 423 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1975, no writ). A party enters a general appearance whenever it invokes the judgment of the court on a......
-
Webb v. Webb, 8238
...jurisdiction of the court. See Leaverton v. Leaverton, 417 S.W.2d 82 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1967, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Grand American Co. v. Stockstill, 523 S.W.2d 422 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1975, no The trial court had jurisdiction over the person of appellee and had jurisdiction of the cau......