Thursby v. Stovall

647 S.W.2d 953, 26 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 325, 1983 Tex. LEXIS 275
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedApril 6, 1983
DocketC-1874
StatusPublished
Cited by42 cases

This text of 647 S.W.2d 953 (Thursby v. Stovall) 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
Thursby v. Stovall, 647 S.W.2d 953, 26 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 325, 1983 Tex. LEXIS 275 (Tex. 1983).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an original mandamus action in which Relator, John Thursby, seeks a writ of mandamus directing Judge Thomas J. Stovall to vacate his order granting a motion to set aside the default judgment obtained by Thursby. The writ is conditionally granted.

Thursby filed a negligence action against three defendants, complaining that he had been injured on the job site and that all three defendants were liable for his injuries. Thursby attempted to serve one of the defendants, Tankard-Smith, Inc., at the address on file with the Secretary of State of its registered agent. Citation was not served, but returned with the notations “date expired” and “wrong address”. Therefore, pursuant to Tex.Bus.Corp.Act Ann. art. 2.11, Thursby delivered his petition to the office of the Secretary of State which forwarded it again to the address of the registered agent. The papers were returned with the notation “insufficient address”.

On June 24, 1982 Judge Stovall rendered an interlocutory default judgment against Tankard-Smith. Thursby filed a motion to sever his action against Tankard-Smith from the claim against the two other defendants, and on July 15 Judge Stovall rendered an order severing the action. On *954 September 14, after hearing evidence on damages, Judge Stovall rendered a final default judgment against Tankard-Smith in the amount of $250,000.

On January 14,1983 Tankard-Smith filed a motion to set aside default judgment with Judge Stovall. On January 28 Judge Sto-vall entered an order granting the motion, because there was a defect in the service of process.

The applicable rule of civil procedure, Tex.R.Civ.Pro. 329b, provides that on the expiration of thirty days after the judgment is signed, a judgment cannot be set aside by the trial court except by bill of review. In McEwen v. Harrison, 162 Tex. 125, 345 S.W.2d 706 (1961), we conditionally granted a writ of mandamus under a factual setting very similar to this case. There the corporate defendant moved to set aside a default judgment two months after it had become final, and the trial court granted the relief because citation was not served on any person designated as an agent for service. We held that the trial court erred, because the exclusive methods for vacating a default judgment after thirty days from the date of judgment have expired, where the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction, are bill of review or appeal by writ of error. Accord, Deen v. Kirk, 508 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.1974).

In this case Tankard-Smith moved to set aside the default judgment three months after it had become final. The motion does not contain the necessary allegations to qualify it as a bill of review. Judge Sto-vall’s granting of the motion to set aside default judgment is in conflict with the holdings in McEwen v. Harrison, supra, and Deen v. Kirk, supra, and Tex.R.Civ.Pro. 329b. Therefore, without hearing oral argument, we grant the writ of mandamus pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.Pro. 483. If Judge Stovall fails to vacate his order setting aside the default judgment, the writ will issue.

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

Related

in Re RPH Capital Partners, LP
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016
in Re Ernest Ray Koonce
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
in Re Queen Preston
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Werley v. Cannon
344 S.W.3d 527 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011)
in Re J. Allan Goddard
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010
Pollard v. Pollard
316 S.W.3d 246 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
in Re Harry Matthew Fry
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010
Claxton v. (Upper) Lake Fork Water Control & Improvement District No. 1
220 S.W.3d 537 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
In Re State and $15,975.85 in US Currency
221 S.W.3d 713 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Patsy Jean Johnson v. Wayne Ventling
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004
Johnson v. Ventling
132 S.W.3d 173 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
647 S.W.2d 953, 26 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 325, 1983 Tex. LEXIS 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thursby-v-stovall-tex-1983.