Smith v. Hine Pontiac Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Smith v. Hine Pontiac Co.

328 S.W.2d 919, 1959 Tex. App. LEXIS 2172

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 29, 1959

DocketNo. 3679

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 328 S.W.2d 919 (Smith v. Hine Pontiac 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

Smith v. Hine Pontiac Co., 328 S.W.2d 919, 1959 Tex. App. LEXIS 2172 (Tex. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

WILSON, Justice.

Appellant sought to set aside a default judgment by filing a motion alleging that an answer was filed. The clerk’s records show none was filed. As to existence of a meritorious defense, the motion alleged, Defendant has a meritorious defense to said suit and if the purported judgment by default is set aside defendant will answer and appear and present to the court such defense.”

After pointedly calling attention to asserted insufficiency of the motion, and upon the failure of appellant to offer any evidence as to what defense might be available; or, indeed, upon the issue of whether an answer was filed, the court reluctantly overruled the motion. No error is presented. Harder v. Sanders, 155 Tex. 149, 284 S.W.2d 144, 146; Fowler v. Roden, 129 Tex. 599, 105 S.W.2d 187, 189; Griffin v. Duty, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W.2d 229, 233; Patton v. Samuel, Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W.2d 439, 441.

Affirmed.

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

WILSON, Justice.

Appellant sought to set aside a default judgment by filing a motion alleging that an answer was filed. The clerk’s records show none was filed. As to existence of a meritorious defense, the motion alleged, Defendant has a meritorious defense to said suit and if the purported judgment by default is set aside defendant will answer and appear and present to the court such defense.”

After pointedly calling attention to asserted insufficiency of the motion, and upon the failure of appellant to offer any evidence as to what defense might be available; or, indeed, upon the issue of whether an answer was filed, the court reluctantly overruled the motion. No error is presented. Harder v. Sanders, 155 Tex. 149, 284 S.W.2d 144, 146; Fowler v. Roden, 129 Tex. 599, 105 S.W.2d 187, 189; Griffin v. Duty, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W.2d 229, 233; Patton v. Samuel, Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W.2d 439, 441.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 S.W.2d 919, 1959 Tex. App. LEXIS 2172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-hine-pontiac-co-texapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack