Werner Stave Co. v. Smith
| Decision Date | 02 June 1909 |
| Citation | 120 S.W. 247 |
| Parties | WERNER STAVE CO. v. SMITH. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Sabine County Court; H. C. Maund, Judge.
Action by Eugene Smith against the Werner Stave Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.
Hamilton & Minton, for appellant. E. P. Padgett, for appellee.
This is a suit instituted by defendant in error to recover a sum of money for 111 days' labor. It was alleged that plaintiff in error is a foreign corporation, with its offices and places of business in Memphis, Tenn., and Shreveport, La., but doing business in Sabine county, Tex., with George Poje as its local agent. The corporation was served through its agent, Poje. There were no exceptions nor pleas in abatement filed to the service, but plaintiff in error appeared and answered fully to the merits. The court rendered judgment in favor of defendant in error.
The statute authorizes service on foreign corporations, private or public, by serving the process on the president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, general manager, or upon any local agent of such corporation. Article 1223, Rev. St. 1895. The citation was sufficient. The service on the corporation was legal and valid, but, if it had not been, service was waived by the voluntary appearance and answer of plaintiff in error.
It appears from a bill of exception, found in the record, that when the trial judge rendered his judgment, plaintiff in error requested him to file his conclusions of law and findings of fact, and the court failed to file the same. The court was in session for a week after the request was made. The right to the findings of law and fact is a statutory one, and the refusal to file them was directly in the face of the statute, which plainly states that "upon a trial by the court the judge shall, at the request of either of the parties, also state in writing the conclusions of facts found by him separately from the conclusions of law, which conclusions of fact and law shall be filed with the clerk and shall constitute a part of the record." Article 1333, Rev. St. 1895. The bill of exception was filed on the same day that the judgment was rendered, indicating a refusal to file the conclusions of law and fact, rather than a failure, as stated in the bill of exception. There is no statement of facts in the record; and, in its absence, the failure or refusal of the trial judge to file his conclusions of law and fact,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fidelity Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Pruitt
...W. 526, 529; Wandry v. Williams, 103 Tex. 93, 124 S. W. 85; Buckner v. Davis, 61 Tex. Civ. App. 493, 129 S. W. 639; Werner Stave Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 120 S. W. 247; Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v. Waco Brick Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 150 S. W. 600; Eaton v. Klein (Tex. Civ. App.) 141 S. ......
-
Kemp v. Everett
... ... See 2 Cyc. 730h ... While it is true that in Werner Stave Co ... v. Smith, 120 S. W. 247, and in Wandry v. Williams, 124 S. W. 85, it was held ... ...
-
Culwell v. Allen
...is sustained. T. & N. O. Railroad Co. v. Highland Dairy Co., 137 S. W. 137; Wandry v. Williams, 103 Tex. 91, 124 S. W. 85; Werner Stave Co. v. Smith, 120 S. W. 247; Crocker v. Crocker, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 296, 46 S. W. 870; Buckner v. Davis, 61 Tex. Civ. App. 493, 129 S. W. 639; Boyette v. Gl......
-
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bracken
...that we deem it sufficient to only refer to a few of the cases on that point. Wandry v. Williams, 103 Tex. 91, 124 S. W. 85; Werner Stave Co. v. Smith, 120 S. W. 247; Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Ragley-McWilliams Lbr. Co., 162 S. W. This judgment, therefore, as to the Houston, East & West T......