Steger v. May

202 S.W. 989, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 358
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 18, 1918
DocketNo. 830.
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 202 S.W. 989 (Steger v. May) 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
Steger v. May, 202 S.W. 989, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 358 (Tex. Ct. App. 1918).

Opinion

WALTHALL, J.

This action was brought in the county court of El Paso county by E. P. May against V. Steger to recover the sum of $500, alleged to have been sustained by him for the alleged breach of contract to inspect and buy certain horses and mules, and expenses incident to gathering same, time lost, etc. No answer was filed by Steger. Judgment by default was rendered for May, for $335.

Plaintiff in error assigns error in the court’s rendering judgment in any sum, there being no service of citation upon him, and no acceptance or waiver of service or appearance. While the judgment rendered recites that plaintiff in error, “though duly cited, having failed to appear and answer in this behalf, but wholly made default,” etc., the record does not otherwise show service of citation, waiver, or appearance. Article *990 2109, Vernon's Sayles’ Texas Civ. Statutes, prescribes that the transcript shall, except as provided, contain a full and correct copy of all the proceedings had in the case. Article 2110, Vernon’s Sayles’, provides that, if the pleadings or judgment show an appearance of the defendant in person or by an attorney, the citation and returns shall not be copied into the transcript. The record shows no agreement to omit the copying of the citation in the transcript. Where the record on appeal shows no citation to defendant, waiver, or appearance, it fails to show that the trial court had jurisdiction. Palomas Hand & Cattle Co. v. Good et al., 184 S. W. 805, and cases there cited; Daugherty v. Powell, 139 S. W. 625.

Eor reasons stated, the case is reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Harris v. Hayles
433 S.W.2d 250 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Flynt v. City of Kingsville
82 S.W.2d 934 (Texas Supreme Court, 1935)
Peterson & Tvrdik v. Mueller-Huber Grain Co.
58 S.W.2d 890 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Hable v. Owens
271 S.W. 131 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
202 S.W. 989, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steger-v-may-texapp-1918.