Case ID: sw_280/html/0349-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SMITH, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CAMPBELL v. CITY FINANCE CO.
    (No. 7500.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
    Feb. 10, 1926.)
    1. Process &wkey;>l55.
    Court properly heard evidence on issue raised by affidavit as to whether áffiant served with process was member of partnership sued.
    2. Appeal and error <&wkey;78(2).
    Order quashing an attempted service of process and continuing cause for service held not a final judgment supporting an appeal, in view of Rev. St. 1911, arts. 1997, 2078.
    Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; Robert W. B. Terrell, Judge.
    Suit by Sonnie Campbell against the City Finance Company, a partnership. Fkom an order quashing service and continuing cause for service, plaintiff appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Oliver W. Johnson, of San Antonio, for appellant.
    Leonard .Brown, of San Antonio, for appel-lee.
   SMITH, J.

This suit was brought by Son-nie Campbell against the City Finance Company, alleged to be a partnership composed of R. D. King and S. C. King, of Atlanta, Ga., and S. O. Ormsby, of San Antonio, Service of citation as to the partnership was had upon Ormsby, who filed an affidavit denying that he was a partner in said firm, which he averred was composed of R. D. King and S. C. King, only. At the instance of Leonard Brown, Esq., as amicus eurise, the trial court heard evidence upon the issue raised in this affidavit, found that Ormsby was not and had not been a partner in said firm, entered an order quashing the service sought to be obtained through said process, and continued the cause for service. To this order Campbell excepted, gave notice of appeal, filed an appeal bond, and seeks to have that order reviewed by this court.

The trial court undoubtedly pursued the proper procedure required of him by the filing of Ormsby’s affidavit. Pecos & N. T. R. Co. v. Cox, 157 S. W. 745, 106 Tex. 74. But the order, entered in pursuance of that procedure, quashing the service and continuing the cause, is not such a final judgment as will support an appeal. Articles 1997, 2078, R. S. 1911; Kinney v. Telephone Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 222 S. W. 227; Taylor v. Masterson (Tex. Civ. App.) 231 S. W. 856.

The appeal will be dismissed.