Case ID: sw_254/html/0629-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KLETT, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MASSIE DRILLING CO. v. NEES.
    
    (No. 2164.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
    June 20, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 3, 1923.)
    Partnership &wkey;>204 — Service of process 'held sufficient to charge partnership.
    Personal service on all the members of an alleged partnership held sufficient to bring the partnership before the court and to authorize judgment against it as well as against the individual members served.
    Error from District Court, Wichita. County ; P. A. Martin, Judge.
    Action by G. L. Nees against the Massie Drilling Company and -others. Judgment for plaintiff, and named defendant brings errof.
    Judgment affirmed.
    Bonner, Bonner & Sanford, of Wichita Falls, and Slay, Simon, Smith & Morris, of Fort Worth, for plaintiff in error.
    T. B. Greenwood and W. B. Chauncey, both of Wichita Falls, for defendant in error.
    
      
       Writ o£ error granted November 21, 1923.
    
   KLETT, J.

In Connellee v. Nees, 254 S. W. 625, this day decided, the appellee in that case sued and obtained judgment against the Massie Drilling Company, T. W. Connellee, P. G. Pangburn, T. O. Massie, and estate of Joe M. Collins. The appellee alleged that the Massie Drilling Company was a joint-stock association, as well as a partnership, and that the individuals named composed the partnership. From the judgment rendered the Massie Drilling Company, as- a separate entity, has sued out writ of error to this court, asserting that the service was not sufficient to warrant default judgment against the Massie Drilling Company, which we held to be a partnership. Personal service was obtained on all the members. This was sufficient to bring the partnership before the court and authorize judgment against it, as well as the individual members served. Graham Hotel Corp. v. Leader (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 700.

The assignments are overruled, and the judgment affirmed. 
      <S=oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes