Morgan v. Hardy
Decision Date | 19 January 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 2776.,2776. |
Citation | 57 S.W.2d 204 |
Parties | MORGAN v. HARDY et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Claude M. McCallum, Judge.
Suit by W. T. Hardy and others against J. Doug Morgan, wherein defendant filed a cross-action against the Universal Motor Company. Judgment in favor of W. T. Hardy against defendant, and in favor of J. V. Hardy against defendant, and judgment against the Universal Motor Company and against defendant on his cross-action, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
J. Louis Shook and Smithdeal, Shook, Spence & Bowyer, all of Dallas, for appellant.
J. E. Gilbert and Bailey, Nickels & Bailey, all of Dallas, for appellees.
This suit was instituted by appellees, as plaintiffs, against appellant, as defendant, in the 101st district court of Dallas county, Tex., on July 21, 1928.
While the correctness of some of the findings of fact made by the trial court are questioned, yet we think they present a reasonably fair statement of the facts and we shall quote them here and later discuss those portions attacked. They are:
After being served in October, 1931, appellant answered by general demurrer, general denial, a plea of the four-year statute of limitations, a plea of settlement, and prayed for a judgment over against Universal Motor Company in case of judgment against him in favor of the Hardys.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of W. T. Hardy and against appellant in the sum of $833.10; in favor of J. V. Hardy against appellant for $1,085.35; that Universal Motor Company take nothing; that appellant take nothing on his cross-action against Universal Motor Company; and that the chattel mortgage be foreclosed for the satisfaction of the amounts due W. T. and J. V. Hardy.
This appeal has been perfected from said judgment.
Opinion.In his ten propositions appellant attacks the correctness of the judgment on the following grounds: (1) That the finding of the court that appellees exercised due diligence to procure service of citation upon appellant was not a finding of fact but merely a conclusion of the court and therefore insufficient to support judgment based thereon; (2) that the evidence was wholly insufficient to support such finding; (3) that the facts shown were insufficient, as a matter of law, to amount to diligence such as would toll the statute; (4) that the court having found that appellant was a nonresident, transient person, no diligence was shown in the absence of a showing that appellant was cited by publication; (5) that the finding of the court that appellant was a transient person and had his residence in Illinois was without evidence to support it; and (6) that the court was without power to foreclose a lien on property which was without the state at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mayne v. Jacob Michel Real Estate Co.
... ... Roos, 278 Mich. 485, 270 N.W. 759; Rees v ... Clark, 213 Pa. 617, 620; Peck v. Insurance Co., ... 102 Mich. 52, 60 N.W. 453; Morgan v. Hardy, 57 ... S.W.2d 204 (Texas); Meyer v. Pecos Mercantile Co. 47 S.W.2d ... 435 (Texas) ... T ... Douglas Moore for ... ...
-
Gibraltar Savings Association v. King
...Cases cited by appellant in support of its position are distinguishable. In both Meyer v. Pecos Mercantile Co., supra, and Morgan v. Hardy, 57 S.W.2d 204 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1933, no writ) it is clear that plaintiff's attorneys made every effort to obtain service upon defendants. The sam......
-
McDonald v. Evans
...190 S.W. 793; Bering Mfg. Co. v. W. T. Carter & Bro. et al., supra; Meyer v. Pecos Mercantile Company, supra; Morgan v. Hardy et al., Tex.Civ.App., 57 S.W.2d 204. The trial court found against appellant's contention of lack of diligence, and we cannot say that there was no evidence of proba......
-
San Saba Nat. Bank of San Saba v. Parker, 8734.
...of fact to be determined by the trial court or by the jury. Meyer v. Pecos Mercantile Co., Tex.Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 435; Morgan v. Hardy, Tex.Civ.App., 57 S.W.2d 204; Morgan v. Smart, Tex.Civ. App., 88 S.W.2d In view of the fact that the defendant at all times lived in San Saba County, near ......