Case Name: EARNEST v. COUCH et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1934-04-18
Citations: 71 S.W.2d 547
Docket Number: No. 9479
Parties: EARNEST v. COUCH et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 71
Pages: 547–548

Head Matter:
EARNEST v. COUCH et al.
No. 9479.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
April 18, 1934.
Rehearing Denied May 23, 1934.
J. P. Carl, of Edinburg, for plaintiff in error.
Griffin, Kimbrough & Cox, of McAllen, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
SMITH, Justice.
This action was brought by plaintiff in error, D. C. Earnest, against Hidalgo county, and various officials thereof, and Hidalgo county drainage district No. 1, and the commissioners thereof, including George Lang-ford, alleged to be one of said commissioners. Prom an adverse judgment, plaintiff in error has sought to prosecute writ of error.
It appears from the record presented here that the writ of error was attempted to be perfected against the drainage district by service upon its three commissioners, each of whom was also made a defendant below as well as in the application for writ of error. One of said commissioners was alleged by plaintiff in error to be George Eangford, and service of writ of error was bad upon bim as sucb.' The record shows the fact to be, however, that Langford was not sucb commissioner at the time of tbe filing of tbe application for writ of error and service tbereon upon bim, but that said Langford had been superseded by Oharles A. Starlin, who still holds that office, but has not been served with tbe writ.
The result is. that only two of tbe commissioners have been cited, and as tbe drainage district has not been otherwise cited than through the attempted service upon its three commissioners, the writ of error has not been perfected. Article 8174, R. g. 1925; Matagorda County Drainage Dist. v. Gaines & Corbett (Tex. Civ. App.) 140 S. W. 370; 371.
Defendants in error have raised objections to the citation in error and return thereon, but it seems those objections have been waived by defendants in error. Brillhart v. Beever (Tex. Civ. App.) 198 S. W. 973.
Defendants in error's motion to strike the cause from the docket of this court, for want of proper service, will be granted, and the cause stricken. Vineyard v. McCombs, 100 Tex. 318, 99 S. W. 544; Brazell v. Irene Independent School Dist. (Tex. Civ. App.) 279 S. W. 871.