Ayers v. Alamo Lumber Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ayers v. Alamo Lumber Co.

122 S.W.2d 208

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 30, 1938

DocketNo. 10382.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 S.W.2d 208 (Ayers v. Alamo Lumber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ayers v. Alamo Lumber Co., 122 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Chief Justice.

This action was brought by K. B. Ayers against Alamo Lumber Company and C. C. Caperton to recover damages of them, jointly, for breach of contract. The suit was brought in the District Court of Dim-mit County, and upon sustaining the Lumber Company’s plea in abatement of the action, on the ground of the pendency of a like suit in a county court at law of Bexar County, the trial court dismissed this action from the Dimmit docket.

Ayers filed his petition in error in the trial court against both defendants, the Lumber Company and Caperton, and likewise filed bond in error, naming both' the Lumber Company and Caperton as obli-gees. He also had citation in error issued to and served upon defendant in error Alamo Lumber Company. But plaintiff m error failed to have citation issue to or 'served upon the other defendant, Caperton, and has presented the record in that condition to this court for decision on the merits, in the regular course of submission.

This Court can acquire no jurisdiction of a cause brought up on writ of error unless and until it is made to appear here, affirmatively, that each defendant in error has been duly served with citation in error, or has waived such service, expressly or by his cofiduct. No such showing has been made in this cause; the contrary is apparent from the record. Art. 2261, R.S.1925; 3 Tex.Jur. page 358, § 253; Barnard v. Tarleton, 57 Tex. 402; Victory v. Hamilton, 127 Tex. 203, 91 S.W.2d 697; Adams v. Bida, 125 Tex. 458, 84 S.W.2d 693; Scarborough v. Groesbeck, Tex.Civ.App., 25 S.W. 687; Irvin v. Auto Finance Co., Tex.Civ.App., 34 S.W.2d 672; Earnest v. Couch, Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 547; Travis Ref. Co. v. Osage Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W. 114; Moody-Seagraves Ranch v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 59 S.W.2d 431; Guyer v. Prince, Tex.Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 1091; Austin v. First State Bank & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 260 S.W. 275; Adams & Co. v. Evans, Tex.Civ.App., 245 S.W. 450.

The cause will be stricken from the docket of this Court, at the cost of plaintiff in error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SMITH, Chief Justice.

This action was brought by K. B. Ayers against Alamo Lumber Company and C. C. Caperton to recover damages of them, jointly, for breach of contract. The suit was brought in the District Court of Dim-mit County, and upon sustaining the Lumber Company’s plea in abatement of the action, on the ground of the pendency of a like suit in a county court at law of Bexar County, the trial court dismissed this action from the Dimmit docket.

Ayers filed his petition in error in the trial court against both defendants, the Lumber Company and Caperton, and likewise filed bond in error, naming both' the Lumber Company and Caperton as obli-gees. He also had citation in error issued to and served upon defendant in error Alamo Lumber Company. But plaintiff m error failed to have citation issue to or 'served upon the other defendant, Caperton, and has presented the record in that condition to this court for decision on the merits, in the regular course of submission.

This Court can acquire no jurisdiction of a cause brought up on writ of error unless and until it is made to appear here, affirmatively, that each defendant in error has been duly served with citation in error, or has waived such service, expressly or by his cofiduct. No such showing has been made in this cause; the contrary is apparent from the record. Art. 2261, R.S.1925; 3 Tex.Jur. page 358, § 253; Barnard v. Tarleton, 57 Tex. 402; Victory v. Hamilton, 127 Tex. 203, 91 S.W.2d 697; Adams v. Bida, 125 Tex. 458, 84 S.W.2d 693; Scarborough v. Groesbeck, Tex.Civ.App., 25 S.W. 687; Irvin v. Auto Finance Co., Tex.Civ.App., 34 S.W.2d 672; Earnest v. Couch, Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 547; Travis Ref. Co. v. Osage Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W. 114; Moody-Seagraves Ranch v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 59 S.W.2d 431; Guyer v. Prince, Tex.Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 1091; Austin v. First State Bank & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 260 S.W. 275; Adams & Co. v. Evans, Tex.Civ.App., 245 S.W. 450.

The cause will be stricken from the docket of this Court, at the cost of plaintiff in error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.W.2d 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ayers-v-alamo-lumber-co-texapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack