Case Name: THOMAS v. DRIVER
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1932-11-25
Citations: 55 S.W.2d 187
Docket Number: No. 2280
Parties: THOMAS v. DRIVER.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 55
Pages: 187–190

Head Matter:
THOMAS v. DRIVER.
No. 2280.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.
Nov. 25, 1932.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 21, 1932.
Gibson & Blackshear, of Laredo, for plaintiff in error.
Hodges & Greve, of Nacogdoches, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
WALKER, C. J.
In this case in the court below defendant in error, R. I. Driver, recovered a personal judgment against plaintiff in error, Woodlief Thomas, for the sum of $14,714.34, with foreclosure of chattel mortgage lien against certain personal property described in the judgment. The appeal complains only of the judgment of the lower court overruling the plea of privilege of plaintiff in error to be sued in Webb county, his alleged residence.
The following propositions of error are urged by plaintiff in error.
First: In due time plaintiff in error filed his plea of privilege in the district court, which was in due form. He insists that defendant in error filed no controverting affidavit. The transcript, as brought up by plaintiff in error, contains no controverting affidavit, but on motion of defendant in error we granted him permission to file a supplemental transcript which contains a controverting affidavit showing the order of the presiding district judge duly signed by him setting the hearing on the plea of privilege at 9. o'clock a. m. on the 2d day of October, 1931, and directing that nptice be served on plaintiff in error. On this issue the judgment contains the following recitation of facts: "This the 5th day of October, 1931, this cause came on to be heard first upon Woodlief Thomas' plea of privilege, which had been set for hearing October 2nd 1931, but was postponed to this date, service of the controverting affidavit having been had in the manner required by law, plaintiff announced ready and defendant by Gordon Gibson, a member of the firm of Gibson & Blackshear, Attorneys, appeared as Amicus Curia» for the defendant Woodlief Thomas, the pleadings were presented and evidence thereupon heard and the Court found that the note sued upon was payable at Nacogdoches, Texas, and that the attorney Gordon Gibson represented the defendant Woodlief Thomas."
The record affirmatively denies this proposition.
In this connection plaintiff in error has filed a motion to strike the supplemental transcript. The motion to perfect the transcript was filed and presented to us on the day this case was submitted in this court and by affidavit proof was made showing good cause for the delay in filing the motion. In so far as the motion to strike controverts the fact issues made by the motion to file, we expressly find the issues in favor of the motion to file.
Second: It is contended that plaintiff in error was not served with notice of the controverting affidavit. The record contains no copy of notice served on him, and as he made no personal appearance and filed no answer to the merits, and as this is a direct: attack upon the Judgment of the lower court by way of appeal, plaintiff in error contends that the failure of the record to contain a copy of the service is fatal to the judgment. The proposition of law relied upon by plaintiff in error does not control the case. There is no statement of facts in the record. The following pleading was filed in the lower court by Gordon Gibson, who purported to appear as amicus curise:
"R. I. Driver vs. Woodlief Thomas, et al. #7229
"In the District Court, Nacogdoches County, Texas.
"To the Honorable the Said Court:
"Gordon Gibson, a practicing attorney of the Laredo, Texas, bar, respectfully requests leave of this Court to appear herein as amicus curiae for the purpose of calling the attention of the Court to the fact that this Court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine the questions purported to be raised by plaintiff's affidavit in this cause controverting the plea of privilege of the defendant Woodlief Thomas, because there has been no legal service of the controverting affidavit upon said defendant or any other person on whom such service might be made according to law and said defendant Woodlief Thomas is without legal notice of the time and place of the hearing of such issues.
"Gordon Gibson, Attorney at Law,
Laredo, Texas."
When this pleading was filed the trial court, by the recitations of the judgment, duly heard the_ issues raised by the pleading and determined, first, that Mr. Gibson did not appear as amicus curise but as attorney for plaintiff in error. On this finding plaintiff in error was in court as if he had appeared in, person. Second, plaintiff in error being before the court for hearing on the issues made by the plea filed by Mr. Gibson, the trial court found, as shown by the excerpt from the judgment quoted above, that service of the controverting affidavit had been had in the manner required by law. In the absence of a statement of facts, plaintiff in error is bound by the trial court's conclusion that he appeared in the lower court by his attorney, Gordon Gibson, and that he was duly served with notice of the controverting affidavit.
In his original petition defendant in error also made Atha Thomas of La Salle county a party defendant. Since Mr. Thomas is in no wqy a party to this appeal, we have no power to consider plaintiff in error's proposition complaining of the ruling of the lower court as it related to Mr. Thomas.
It follows that the judgment of the lower court should be in all things affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
Affirmed.