Opinion ID: 2323810
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: was the judgment obtained against the wrong party?

Text: The judgment in Texas was obtained by appellee against Ann Hastings, an individual. Appellant contends that her correct name is Ann Hull (which appears to be her married name) and that only a partnership with which she has been associated carries the name Ann Hastings. She does not deny that she is the person who dealt with appellee and who made all the representations upon which he based his suit against her. At trial in this jurisdiction, appellee charged that Ann Hastings is not merely a partnership name but is a name by which appellant is generally known. A disinterested witness testified that she met appellant personally when interviewing her for a magazine article and was led to believe that appellant's name was Ann Hastings. Typewritten letters were also produced bearing the hand-written signature Ann Hastings, and it was established that Ann Hastings was appellant's maiden name. Since appellant held herself out to be Ann Hastings and conducted all her business with appellee under this name, she is not in a position to collaterally attack the Texas judgment by claiming at this date that her name is something other than that used in her business transaction with appellee.