NRTRX Corp. v. Story, 18158
| Decision Date | 17 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 18158,18158 |
| Citation | 582 S.W.2d 225 |
| Parties | NRTRX CORPORATION, Appellant, v. D. C. STORY, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
NRTRX petitioned by writ of error to reverse a default judgment taken against it. It complains that the sheriff's return of citation is insufficient to support the judgment in that it shows delivery of process to one other than the agent for the corporation named in the citation and petition.
We affirm.
D. C. Story, an independent truck operator, filed suit against HMM Distributing Corporation and NRTRX Corporation seeking damages resulting from being sold diesel fuel that was allegedly contaminated with water. HMM answered but NRTRX did not.
The cause came for trial and the court heard evidence and argument of counsel and found that a severance should be granted as to NRTRX Corporation and judgment rendered against it.
The judgment recites that a severance is entered as to defendant NRTRX Corporation so that this judgment is a full and final judgment as between D. C. Story, plaintiff, and NRTRX Corporation, defendant.
The judgment then recites that judgment was rendered in favor of D. C. Story against NRTRX Corporation for damages. After the judgment was rendered and signed, the clerk assigned it a new cause number. The cause against the other defendant, HMM Distributing Corporation, is still pending.
NRTRX filed a motion for new trial in the severed cause of action, which will be referred to hereafter. After execution was issued to enforce the default judgment, NRTRX filed its petition for a writ of error seeking to have the judgment reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
The citation was executed in Tarrant County, Texas by summoning NRTRX Corporation by delivering to "H. H. Michener, President," in person of NRTRX Corporation a true copy of the citation and plaintiff's original petition.
Thus, NRTRX complains that the return of citation shows that someone other than the person designated in the citation was served by personal delivery of the process. Its position is that the return is defective because it shows that H. H. Michener, president, was served instead of H. M. Michener, registered agent. NRTRX points out that there is no evidence or pleading in the record concerning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibraltar Sav. Ass'n v. Kilpatrick
...Food Fair, Inc. v. Hare, 611 S.W.2d 113 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.); NRTRX Corp. v. Story, 582 S.W.2d 225 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Pipe Line Park Properties, Inc. v. Fraser, 398 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1965, no writ); contra, ......
-
Gerland's Food Fair, Inc. v. Hare
...corporation is prima facie evidence that he is indeed such officer and suffices to show valid service. NRTRX Corporation v. Story, 582 S.W.2d 225 (Tex.Civ.App.1979, writ ref. n. r. e.); Pipe Line Park Properties, Inc. v. Fraser, 398 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Civ.App.1965, no writ). See also 2 McDonal......
-
P & H Transp., Inc. v. Robinson
...citation is served with process, the court did not secure jurisdiction over the named defendant. NRTRX Corp. v. Story, 582 S.W.2d 225, 226 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The record does not affirmatively show it was Leo Jarvis who was served with process. We sustain poi......
-
Fairdale Ltd. v. Sellers
...and that he was served. The situation before us is an analoguos to that presented in NRTRX Corporation v. D.C. Story, 582 S.W.2d 225 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.) and Sheshunoff & Co., Inc. v. Scholl, 560 S.W.2d 113 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1977), rev'd on oth......