Spann v. Compania Mexicana Radiodifusora Fronteriza

• Citation: 131 F.2d 609
• Decision Date: 07 December 1942
• Docket Number: No. 10243.,10243.
• Parties: SPANN v. COMPANIA MEXICANA RADIODIFUSORA FRONTERIZA, S. A.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

131 F.2d 609 (1942)

SPANN v. COMPANIA MEXICANA RADIODIFUSORA FRONTERIZA, S. A.

No. 10243.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

December 7, 1942.

Charles W. Starling, of Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

Harold A. Bateman and L. E. Elliott, both of Dallas, Tex., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

The suit for $6,000.00, with interest from September 13, 1937, was on a Mexican judgment for costs "in the amount of $6,000.00 or its equivalent in National currency". The judgment, for 12 percent of $50,000.00, the amount the defendant in this suit had sued for as plaintiff, had been rendered by the Fourth Chamber of the Superior Tribunal of Justice of the State of Coahuila, Mexico, a court of competent jurisdiction, and had been appealed to and affirmed in the Supreme Court of Mexico.

Defendant, insisting that the suit was not for a sum or value in excess of $3,000.00, and that the court was without jurisdiction of it, further defended on the grounds: (1) that the judgment was void because rendered without personal notice to, or personal service upon him; and (2) that it was not enforceable because, imposing costs of 12 percent, 8 percent as attorney's fees and 4 percent as costs of appeal, on the amount he, as plaintiff, had "asked in damages", the judgment was grossly excessive in the light of, and obnoxious to, the public policy of Texas.

The evidence on a trial to a jury, in no manner impeached the judgment. On the contrary, it established that defendant through an attorney of his selection had, as plaintiff, instituted suit in Mexico against plaintiff in this suit, as defendant, "for $50,000.00, or its equivalent in National currency"; that judgment had gone against plaintiff in that suit, had been appealed and affirmed; that in accordance with Mexican law, judgment for costs had been entered against plaintiff in favor of defendant "in the sum of $6,000.00, or its equivalent in National currency"; that an appeal had been taken from that judgment to, and it had been affirmed by, the Supreme Court of Mexico, and that no part of it had been paid. The district judge, of the opinion¹ that under settled law, verdict for plaintiff for the amount sued for was demanded, instructed a verdict and gave judgment accordingly.

We approve that opinion as a correct statement both of the facts and of the applicable law, and shall add to it only to make some additional citations, and to point out more clearly the inconsistent position in which appellant finds himself when, after having elected to sue in Mexico and invoke the jurisdiction and the law governing the proceedings of Mexican courts, he now seeks to defend against a judgment, the legal consequence of the exercise of his own volition.

The evidence appellant relies on shows no more than that he was not informed of the...