Court Opinion

ID: 9654610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:44:08.461025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:11.753707
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant complains that we did not discuss Spencer v. Texas Factors, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., Dallas, 366 S.W.2d 699, writ ref., n. r. e., in disposing of his contention that substituted service was not authorized because no evidence was heard on the motion filed under Rule 106, T.R.C.P. In that case the Court held that appellant was entitled to a statement of facts in order to have reviewed “the evidence, if any” to sustain an order for substituted service made under Rule 106.
We are convinced of the soundness of the opinion in Spencer, and have no disposition but to follow it.
We have assumed that no evidence was heard by the trial court before entering the order under Rule 106. We have held, however, that the affidavit attached to the motion may be considered by the trial court in *808determining whether it should make an order under Rule 106.1 Spencer does not show that the motion there was supported by affidavit. In fact, the opinion implies the contrary when it states that evidence of probative value should be heard before an order for substituted service is made, “Otherwise, defendants and the Courts would be exposed to possible fraudulent allegations of impracticality which could not be supported by proof, resulting in great injustices.” (Italics ours.)
Affidavits do not fall within the category of mere allegations.
The motion is overruled.
Motion overruled.

. See Rules 109, 111, 113, T.R.C.P.