Middleton v. Kawasaki Steel Corp., No. C14-84-410CV

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtJUNELL
Citation687 S.W.2d 42
Decision Date03 January 1985
Docket NumberNo. C14-84-410CV
PartiesJohn G. MIDDLETON d/b/a Middleton Oil Company, Appellant, v. KAWASAKI STEEL CORPORATION, Appellee. (14th Dist.)

Page 42

687 S.W.2d 42
John G. MIDDLETON d/b/a Middleton Oil Company, Appellant,
v.
KAWASAKI STEEL CORPORATION, Appellee.
No. C14-84-410CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas,
Houston (14th Dist.).
Jan. 3, 1985.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1985.

Linda L.S. Moroney, Pannill & Reynolds, Houston, for appellant.

W. Robert Brown, Orran Lee Brown, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Brown & Laboon, Houston, for appellee.

Before JUNELL, MURPHY and SEARS, JJ.

OPINION

JUNELL, Associate Justice.

John G. Middleton, plaintiff below, appeals from a judgment dismissing Kawasaki Steel Corporation granted after the court heard a special appearance motion in which Kawasaki alleged a lack of jurisdiction over its person. The court's decision to dismiss is based upon two grounds: (1) that Kawasaki Steel Corporation lacks minimum contacts with this forum so that exercise of jurisdiction over it would violate due process and (2) Middleton has not properly invoked the jurisdiction of the court in that it has not alleged the jurisdictional requirements of the Texas Long Arm Statute nor effected service according to that statute. We reverse and remand because

Page 43

we hold that: (1) Kawasaki did have minimum contacts with this forum at the time Middleton's alleged cause of action accrued and should be subjected to suit in this state; and (2) Kawasaki's complaints as to service amount to a motion to quash and should not have been considered by the trial court in a Rule 120a special appearance hearing. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 120a.

A brief factual background will introduce the parties and issues. In December 1979 appellant Middleton, as operator in drilling a gas well in Colorado County, Texas, set 250 lengths of steel casing into the well. Oilworld Supply Company sold the casing to Middleton. Kawaski Steel Corporation of Japan (Kawasaki) allegedly manufactured the casing. Middleton alleges that the casing separated and the well had to be plugged back at a shallower, less productive zone.

In March 1980 Oilworld sued Middleton for payment for the pipe casing. Middleton filed a counterclaim for damages against Oilworld and third-party claims against Kawasaki and Japan Cotton Company (Japan Cotton), a subsidiary of Nichimen Co., Ltd., the Japanese trading company that had filled Oilworld's order for Kawasaki casing.

Middleton's claim against Kawasaki was filed May 25, 1981. In it he alleged that Kawasaki Steel Corporation was a New York Corporation authorized to do business in Texas and could be served with citation by service upon its registered agent Toshikazu Tomita at its registered office at 1440 Commerce Building, 914 Main Street, Houston, Texas. The return of service shows that citation was served by a Harris County constable by delivering the petition to "T. Tomita," a "v/p of the said corp." in person at the address alleged. If Middleton's allegations had been correct, service on Kawasaki through Mr. Tomita would have been authorized by Tex.Bus.Corp. Act Ann. art. 8.10(A) (Vernon 1980).

Middleton's allegations were wrong. Kawasaki Steel Corporation is and was a Japanese Corporation not licensed to do business in Texas. It has never had a registered agent for service of process in Texas. From 1975 until April 1, 1981, Kawasaki maintained an office at 1440 Commerce Building in Houston. On April 1, 1981, less than two months before Middleton's third-party action was filed, Kawasaki Steel Corporation formed a new, wholly-owned subsidiary, Kawasaki Steel America (Kawasaki America), and transferred its American offices to the subsidiary. The general manager for Kawasaki's Houston office, Mr. Tomita, became the general manager for Kawasaki America and all employees were transferred from the Japanese corporation to the American corporation. Kawasaki America used the same address and telephone number that had belonged to the parent. Kawasaki Steel America is a New York Corporation licensed to do business in Texas and Mr. Tomita is its registered agent for service of process at the Commerce Building address.

These facts distinguish this case from all those cited by the parties in that service of process was not even attempted through the Texas Long Arm statute, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 2031b (Vernon 1964 & Supp.1984).

We consider only the first six points of error proposed by appellant. Appellant sought and received leave to file a supplemental brief so that he could restate his points of error in technical compliance with the broad scope of the opinion in La Sara Grain Co. v. First National Bank, 673 S.W.2d 558, 568 (Tex.1984). This leave did not authorize him to add two new points of error, as appellant attempted to do.

Points of error one, two and five state that the trial court erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction because Kawasaki Steel Corporation of Japan had insufficient contacts with Texas when the evidence showed conclusively that the company actively cultivated the Texas market, knew it was selling defective casing to a Texas oilfield supplier and had continuous and systematic contacts in the Houston market. Appellant argues that as a matter of law Kawasaki's amenability to suit in Texas was established, and alternatively, that the lower

Page 44

court's findings and conclusions are so contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.

Appellant has offered no guidance concerning the standard of review to which we must adhere. Appellee argues that in reviewing the no evidence claims, we should consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence which, viewed in their most favorable light, support the trial court's findings of fact and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary, citing Roark v. Allen, 633 S.W.2d 804, 809 (Tex.1982); Estate of Claveria v. Claveria, 615 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.1981); and Stedman v. Georgetown Savings & Loan Association, 595 S.W.2d 486 (Tex.1979). This is the general rule. However, this court is not only reviewing findings of fact, but also the conclusions of law based upon those facts. Conclusions of law are always reviewable. Muller v. Nelson, Sherrod & Carter, 563 S.W.2d 697, 702 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1978, no writ).

We do not agree with appellee that we must presume that sufficient evidence was introduced to support the findings and judgment of the trial court. Appellee cites Yoast v. Yoast, 649 S.W.2d 289 (Tex.1983), a case in which the appellate record contained no statement of facts. Where a statement of facts is contained in the record, as is the case here, findings of fact are not conclusive on appeal if the contrary is established as a matter of law, or if there is no evidence to support the findings. Swanson v. Swanson, 148 Tex. 600, 228 S.W.2d 156, 158 (1950); Armstrong v. Armstrong, 601 S.W.2d 724, 727 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

When the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals reviewed a trial court's holding that a defendant had insufficient contacts with Texas to be subject to Texas jurisdiction, it accepted all but one of the court's findings of fact, but noted that "the court's findings are not, however, a complete reflection of the evidence." Wright Waterproofing Co. v. Applied Polymers, 602 S.W.2d 67, 70 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 608 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.1980). The appellate court then proceeded to review the other undisputed evidence in the record and reversed the trial court. The court of civil appeals found that the defendant was "doing business" in Texas and that it had sufficient contacts with this forum to acquire jurisdiction over it without offending traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 602 S.W.2d at 70-71. See also National Truckers Service, Inc. v. Aero...

To continue reading

Request your trial
119 practice notes
  • Miranda v. Byles, No. 01–10–01022–CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • November 16, 2012
    ...and may be challenged for legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting them. See Middleton v. Kawasaki Steel Corp., 687 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985), writ ref'd n.r.e.,699 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.1985). In a bench trial, the trial court determines the credibility o......
  • Templeton v. Dreiss, No. 04-95-00772-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 21, 1998
    ...may be reviewed to determine their correctness. We will address each contention with this in mind. See Middleton v. Kawasaki Steel Corp., 687 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ ref'd 9 Point of error number two contains five subpoints of error. 10 Point of error number......
  • Conner v. ContiCarriers and Terminals, Inc., No. 14-95-00332-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 30, 1997
    ...findings of fact to determine whether its conclusions of law are supported by the evidence as a whole. Middleton v. Kawasaki Steel Corp., 687 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] ), writ ref'd n.r.e., 699 S.W.2d 199 4 In conclusions of law 1, 3, and 4, the court determined: 1. The ......
  • Town of Sunnyvale v. Mayhew, No. 05-92-01401-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 10, 1994
    ...of fact are not conclusive, however, when a complete statement of facts appears in the record. Middleton v. Kawasaki Steel Corp., 687 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] ), writ ref'd n.r.e. 699 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.1985) (per curiam); Stephenson v. Perlitz, 537 S.W.2d 287, 289 (Tex.Ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
119 cases
  • Miranda v. Byles, No. 01–10–01022–CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • November 16, 2012
    ...and may be challenged for legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting them. See Middleton v. Kawasaki Steel Corp., 687 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985), writ ref'd n.r.e.,699 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.1985). In a bench trial, the trial court determines the credibility o......
  • Templeton v. Dreiss, No. 04-95-00772-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 21, 1998
    ...may be reviewed to determine their correctness. We will address each contention with this in mind. See Middleton v. Kawasaki Steel Corp., 687 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ ref'd 9 Point of error number two contains five subpoints of error. 10 Point of error number......
  • Conner v. ContiCarriers and Terminals, Inc., No. 14-95-00332-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 30, 1997
    ...findings of fact to determine whether its conclusions of law are supported by the evidence as a whole. Middleton v. Kawasaki Steel Corp., 687 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] ), writ ref'd n.r.e., 699 S.W.2d 199 4 In conclusions of law 1, 3, and 4, the court determined: 1. The ......
  • Town of Sunnyvale v. Mayhew, No. 05-92-01401-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 10, 1994
    ...of fact are not conclusive, however, when a complete statement of facts appears in the record. Middleton v. Kawasaki Steel Corp., 687 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] ), writ ref'd n.r.e. 699 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.1985) (per curiam); Stephenson v. Perlitz, 537 S.W.2d 287, 289 (Tex.Ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT