Pipe Line Park Properties, Inc. v. Fraser
| Decision Date | 03 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 16640,16640 |
| Citation | 398 S.W.2d 154 |
| Parties | PIPE LINE PARK PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. Jack FRASER, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Geary, Brice & Lewis, Robert A. Baker, Dallas, for appellant.
Carrington, Johnson & Stephens, Ronald L. Neill, Dallas, for appellee.
This case reaches us by writ of error and the sole question is whether the petitioner Pipe Line Park Properties, Inc. is entitled to a reversal of the default judgment rendered against it as garnishee, in garnishment proceedings instituted by the respondent Jack Fraser, for lack of proper service of the writ of garnishment. The constable's return on the writ recites that it was served on petitioner by delivering to Donald Zales, its vice-president. This would indicate proper service on petitioner, which is a domestic corporation, pursuant to Art. 2.11, Texas Business Corporation Act, V.A.T.S., but petitioner has filed, in this court for the first time, original affidavits of Donald Zale and another to the effect that at the time of service Zale was not and never had been a vice-president of petitioner, but was at the time of service the secretary and treasurer of petitioner. Art. 2.11 does not authorize service on the secretary or treasurer.
In determining the jurisdiction of the trial court this court is not authorized to consider evidence outside the record but is restricted to the record of what transpired in the trial court. 3 Tex.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error-Civil, § 395, p. 651, § 399, p. 655; White Motor Co. v. Loden, Tex.Civ.App., 373 S.W.2d 863, no wr. hist.
We therefore decline to consider the affidavits. There being nothing in the record before us to show lack of jurisdiction in the trial court to render the judgment under review, and that being the only attack made in this court against the judgment, it must be affirmed.
Where, as in this case, the officer's return recites service of process on a corporation by delivering it to a corporate officer designated by the statute, as distinguished from those cases where the return shows delivery to one purporting to be an 'agent' authorized to receive the same,* the officer's return affords prima facie evidence that the person served is such officer, obviating the necessity for the trial court to hear evidence thereof. San Antonio and A. P. Ry. Co. v. Wells, 3 Tex.Civ.App. 307, 23 S.W. 31, no wr. hist.; American Soda Fountain Co. v. Hairston Drug Co., Tex.Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 764, no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Voice of Cornerstone Church v. Pizza Prop.
... ... Scientific Games Int'l, Inc., 99 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, pet ... ...
-
Trevino v. Gonzalez
...made in the trial court. Sabine Offshore Service, Inc. v. City of Port Arthur, 595 S.W.2d 840, 841 (Tex.1979); Pipe Line Park Properties, Inc. v. Fraser, 398 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1965, no writ). The "appendix" is not a part of the record and therefore may not be considered ......
-
Gibraltar Sav. Ass'n v. Kilpatrick
...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, Allied Bank of Dallas v. Pleasant Homes, Inc., 757 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.App.-Da......
-
Gerland's Food Fair, Inc. v. Hare
...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 McDonald, Texas Civil Practice §§ In its other four points of error the appell......