Stanford v. Lincoln Tank Co., 16868
| Decision Date | 10 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 16868,16868 |
| Citation | 421 S.W.2d 412 |
| Parties | Raymond STANFORD, Jr., Appellant, v. LINCOLN TANK COMPANY et al., Appellees. . Fort Worth |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Arch Dawson, Wichita Falls, for appellant .
Stanley Kirk, Wichita Falls, for appellee Lincoln Tank Co. in trial court.
Bean, Ford, Schleier & Dickerson, Kilgore, for appellee James S. Person in trial court.
This is an appeal by writ of error from a default judgment granted on the theory that defendant Raymond Stanford, Jr., failed to file an answer.
Suit was filed by plaintiff, Lincoln Tank Company, against defendant Raymond Stanford, Jr. and James S. Person on a verified account, alleging an agreement to pay 8% Interest after sixty days, alleging demand (but not alleging the demand was 30 days prior to filing suit) and asking for attorneys fees. Both defendants answered by general denial. On the 11th day of October, 1966, default judgment was rendered against both defendants for $3,289.62, the account in full, plus interest at 8% And the full attorney fees prayed for. Basis for the default as set out in the judgment, was that 'the Defendants being duly served with citation herein failed to answer or appear in their behalf and wholly made default.' As stated in the findings, defendant Stanford did not appear in the trial, but he was not in default, having an answer on file in the cause since January 24, 1966. On April 7, 1967 he filed his petition for writ of error, and his bond was approved on said date. The transcript of the record was filed in this court on May 15, 1967.
The Court's basis for his action was Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 239, 'Judgment by Default', which authorizes a default judgment at any time against any defendant who has been duly served with citation and fails to answer when required to do so. But the authority is conditioned, 'if he has not previously filed an answer.' On that basis, of no answer filed and a complete default, there was no necessity for compliance with Rule 330, 'Rules of Practice and Procedure in Certain District Courts', (b) 'Setting Cases for Trial, etc.', with reference to setting the case for trial, 'with notice to the parties' of the trial date, and there can be no basis for an inference that the procedure was by T.R.C.P. Rule 330(b). The judgment recites merely the cause 'came on to be heard' and does not find that it was set for trial and the defendants notified and that their default...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hock v. Salaices, 04-98-00258-CV
...(Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied); Frank v. Corbett, 682 S.W.2d 587, 588 (Tex.App.--Waco 1994, no writ).3 Stanford v. Lincoln Tank Co., 421 S.W.2d 412, 413 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1967, no writ)4 Bennett, 868 S.W.2d at 409.5 Handy Andy, 900 S.W.2d at 741.6 Smith, 826 S.W.2d at ......
-
Levada Hughes and Occupants v. Habitat Apartments
... ... was not required to file written answer); Stanford ... v. Lincoln Tank Co., 421 S.W.2d 412, 413 ... ...
-
Lee v. Uvalde County
...or theories which may support the judgment. Cottle v. Knapper, 571 S.W.2d 59, 64 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1978, no writ); Stanford v. Lincoln Tank Co., 421 S.W.2d 412, 413 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1967, no It is quite apparent in the case at bar that the judgment of the court is based solely upo......
-
Rhojo Enters., LLC v. Stevens
...Civ. App.—Dallas 1977, no writ) ; Martinec v. Maneri , 494 S.W.2d 954, 956 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1973, no writ) ; Stanford v. Lincoln Tank Co. , 421 S.W.2d 412, 413 (Tex. Civ. App.—Ft. Worth 1967, no writ). Texas courts generally go to great lengths to recognize any appearance or resp......