Court Opinion

ID: 9832270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:46:51.869862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:45.047012
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant, for the first time, in its motion for rehearing contends that the judgment of the trial court denying it a recovery because it is a foreign corporation transacting or soliciting business in Texas, or having established a general or special, office in the state without obtaining a permit from the secretary of state, is erroneous, in that the cause should have been dismissed rather than judgment rendered denying it a recovery. This contention, of appellant is correct, and the judgment of the trial court should have been one dismissing the cause. Smythe v. Ft. Worth Glass & Sand Co., 105 Tex. 8, 142 S. W. 1157; National Cash Register Co. v. Ondrusek (Tex. Civ. App.) 271 S. W. 640.
Appellant, neither in its motion for rehearing in the trial court nor in its brief filed in this court, suggested such procedure, and made no complaint of the action of the trial court in rendering a judgment against it rather than dismissing the cause. If the matter had been called to the trial court’s attention, the judgment could have, and doubtless would have, been one of dismissal rather than a judgment against appellant ón the merits. Since the matter was not called either to the trial court’s attention or to the attention of this court until appellant filed its motion for rehearing, it should be taxed with the costs of appeal. Converse v. Langshaw, 81 Tex. 275, 16 S. W. 1031; Watkins v. Junker, 90 Tex. 584, 40 S. W. 11.
Our judgment affirming the judgment of the trial court is set aside, and the judgment of the trial court decreeing that appellant shall not recover against appellees is reversed in so far as it renders judgment that plaintiff take nothing by its suit, and plaintiff’s suit i-s ordered dismissed without prejudice. The costs of this appeal are to be taxed against appellant.