Lemothe v. Cimbalista by Gates, 12222
| Decision Date | 24 January 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 12222,12222 |
| Citation | 236 S.W.2d 681 |
| Parties | LEMOTHE v. CIMBALISTA by GATES. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Eugene S. Hurt, Brownsville, Starley & Dennison, Pecos, for appellant.
Brown & Smith and Carter & Stiernberg, all of Harlingen, for appellee.
This suit was instituted by Patricia Cimbalista, by and through her next friend, Mrs. Mary Gates, in the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, against J. R. Lemothe, seeking to recover damages in the sum of $10,000, alleged to have resulted from an automobile collision. Citation was issued on May 13, 1949, and was served on defendant on September 22, 1949, in Ward County, Texas. The citation carried the following directive: 'If this citation is not served within ninety days after date of its issuance it shall be returned unserved.' Thus it appears that the citation was served some forty-two days after it should have been returned to the Clerk of Cameron County, unserved.
Based upon this service, judgment by default was rendered against the defendant, J. R. Lemothe, and the case is now pending in this Court upon a writ of error timely sued out by J. R. Lemothe.
The question here presented is, does the service of a citation upon a defendant more than ninety days after it has been issued perfect such service on the defendant as will support a judgment by default? Rule 101, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, provides, among other things, that the citation shall direct 'that if it is not served within 90 days after date of its issuance, it shall be returned unserved', and the citation in this case contained this provision. Appellee contends that the provision is not mandatory but is merely directory and that a citation does not become functus officio ninety days after the date of its issuance. We overrule this contention. If a citation does not become functus officio ninety days after it is issued, then the above quoted provision of Rule 101 would have no meaning whatever, because under such an interpretation of the rule a sheriff could keep a citation any length of time and then serve it with effect. The provision of Rule 101, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and all other rules relating to the issuing and serving of processes are generally regarded as mandatory, and failure to comply with such rules renders the service thereunder of no effect. Firman Leather Goods Corp. v. McDonald & Shaw, Tex.Civ.App., 217 S.W.2d 137; Mitchell v. Rutter, Tex.Civ.App., 221 S.W.2d 979; Pruitt v. State, 92 Tex. 434, 49 S.W. 366; Blanton Banking Co. v. Taliaferro, Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W. 196.
Article 2022, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats., prior to its repeal by the Rules of Civil Procedure in 1939, required that the citation summon the defendant to appear and answer at the first day of the next regular term of the court, stating the time and place of the holding of same. Such a citation became functus officio on the first day of the term of court to which it was made returnable. Blanton Banking Co. v. Taliaferro, supra; Harrington v. Harrington, 4 Willson, Civ.Cas.Ct.App. § 14, 16 S.W. 538; Leach v. City of Orange, Tex.Civ.App., 46 S.W.2d 1047.
The provision in Rule 101 that the citation be returned unserved ninety days after it is issued, is no doubt intended to take the place of the above provision in said Article 2022, and its purpose is to render a citation not served ninety days after the date of its issuance functus officio. Under the provisions of Rule 101, the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Ballew v. Hawkins
...45; Harrison v. Whiteley, Tex.Com.App., 6 S.W.2d 89; Murphree v. International Shoe Co., 246 Ala. 384, 20 So.2d 782; Lemothe v. Cimbalista, Tex., 236 S.W.2d 681; Leach v. City of Orange, Tex.Civ.App., 46 S.W.2d 1047; Compare Kunzelmann v. Duval, 61 Ohio App. 360, 22 N.E.2d 632.3 State ex re......
-
Ac Interests, L.P. v. Tex. Comm'n On Envtl. Quality
...with the Rules will render the attempted service of process invalid and of no effect."); Lemothe v. Cimbalista by Gates , 236 S.W.2d 681, 681–82 (Tex. Civ. App.–San Antonio 1951, writ ref'd) ("[A]ll other rules relating to the issuing and serving of processes are generally regarded as manda......
-
Strawder v. Thomas
...1980, no writ); Nichols v. Wheeler, 304 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1957, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Lemothe v. Cimbalista, 236 S.W.2d 681, 682 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1951, writ ref'd). a person who is not a party to the proceeding, the object of which is to enforce or defend a right. Liv......
-
Smith v. Adams
...Co., Tex.Civ.App., 211 S.W. 535; Reynolds v. Farmers & Merchants Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 556. See also Lemothe v. Cimbalista, Tex.Civ.App., 236 S.W.2d 681, 682. Appellants also claim title through a deed from N. T. Masterson to Edward S. Boyles on May 30, 1933. A jury found that......