Court Opinion

ID: 9829164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:02:33.71868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:57.849702
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[7, 8] It is asserted in the motion for rehearing that we erred in holding that the petition of defendant in error set forth the name of the local agent of plaintiff in error, and also in holding that the motion for new trial filed by plaintiff in error did not negative the fact that the party served was its agent, and that said motion likewise failed to assert that proof was made of such agency. While this may be true, yet we think the allegation in the petition was equivalent to the statement that Dumas was the local-agent of plaintiff in error; and, where this is the ease, it has been held sufficient. See H. & T. C. R. R. Co. v. Burke, 55 Tex. 323, 40 Am. Rep. 808. In that case it was alleged “ ‘that said company had an office for the transaction of its business as a common carrier in the city of Austin, Travis county, Tex., at which place the agent of said company is Robert S. Collins;’ ” the court remarking that it sufficiently appeared from the averments of the petition that Robert S. Collins was the local agent of the company in Travis county, although the petition does not follow the language of the statute. It will be observed in the instant case that the petition alleged that plaintiff in error was a private corporation, doing business in Coleman county, Tex. with Dumas, Zimmerman & Dibrell, a firm composed of L. M. Dumas, R. E. D. Zimmerman and Geo. Dib-rell, who reside in said Coleman county, Tex., as its agents. This was equivalent, we think, to saying that said parties were its local agents in said county. The citation commanded service upon defendant by delivering a copy thereof to said local agent, and the return of the sheriff shows that the citation was duly served upon defendant, by delivering a copy thereof to L. M. Dumas, its local agent in said county. This being true, we think the service was sufficient; but, in addition to this, when the judgment was assailed on the ground of the insufficiency of the return of the sheriff, the court permitted the amendment of said return, in which judgment it is recited that it appeared to the court that Dumas was, at the time of the service of citation upon him, the local agent, of the defendant company in Coleman county, Tex., and at the time of such service he resided in said county, and the service was made upon said company by delivering to him in person a true copy of the citation issued in said cause. It, therefore, appeared that the question of whether Dumas was the local agent of the company was in fact judicially determined by said court upon said hearing. See G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Gage, 63 Tex. 568.
[9] The return of the officer, showing service upon the local agent, imported absolute verity, and was sufficient to authorize the rendition of judgment by default. See Gatlin v. Dibrell, 74 Tex. 36, 11 S. W. 908; Randell v. Collins, 58 Tex. 231; Wood v. City of Galveston, 76 Tex. 126, 13 S. W. 227.
We believe there is no merit in plaintiff *76in error’s motion for rehearing, and the same will therefore be overruled.
Motion overruled.