Texas Industries, Inc. v. Sanchez

Texas Supreme Court

Texas Industries, Inc. v. Sanchez

525 S.W.2d 870, 18 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 442, 1975 Tex. LEXIS 231

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 16, 1975

DocketB-5293

StatusPublished

Cited by41 cases

This text of 525 S.W.2d 870 (Texas Industries, Inc. v. Sanchez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Texas Industries, Inc. v. Sanchez, 525 S.W.2d 870, 18 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 442, 1975 Tex. LEXIS 231 (Tex. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a Bill of Review judgment setting aside a default judgment against the defendant and rendering a judgment that plaintiff take nothing. The court of civil appeals affirmed. 521 S.W.2d 133. In denying the application for writ of error, no reversible error, we specifically approve the holding of the court of civil appeals that proof of defendant not having been served with citation obviates the necessity of pleading and proving the second Hagedorn requirement: that the defendant was “prevented from making [his meritorious defense] by fraud, accident, or wrongful act of the opposite party . . . .” 1 See Petro-Chemical Transport, Inc. v. Carroll, 514 S.W.2d 240, 243-244 (Tex.1974) and Hanks v. Rosser, 378 S.W.2d 31 (Tex.1964).

1

. Alexander v. Hagedorn, 148 Tex. 565, 226 S.W.2d 996 (1950).

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a Bill of Review judgment setting aside a default judgment against the defendant and rendering a judgment that plaintiff take nothing. The court of civil appeals affirmed. 521 S.W.2d 133. In denying the application for writ of error, no reversible error, we specifically approve the holding of the court of civil appeals that proof of defendant not having been served with citation obviates the necessity of pleading and proving the second Hagedorn requirement: that the defendant was “prevented from making [his meritorious defense] by fraud, accident, or wrongful act of the opposite party . . . .” 1 See Petro-Chemical Transport, Inc. v. Carroll, 514 S.W.2d 240, 243-244 (Tex.1974) and Hanks v. Rosser, 378 S.W.2d 31 (Tex.1964).

1

. Alexander v. Hagedorn, 148 Tex. 565, 226 S.W.2d 996 (1950).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

525 S.W.2d 870, 18 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 442, 1975 Tex. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texas-industries-inc-v-sanchez-tex-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack