Court Opinion

ID: 9833445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:43:46.304029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:02.985665
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellee asserts that our holding is in conflict with the cases of Martinez v. Dragna, Tex.Civ.App., 73 S.W. 425, and Bickford v. Refugio Land & Irrigation Company, Tex.Civ.App., 143 S.W. 1188. In the first case the citation was not served and no answer was filed. In the latter case the citation was served upon the correct officer but in an incorrect-name of the corporation. The corporation did not enter an appearance. In the present case the Express Publishing Company filed an answer, on February 6, 1936, which, after giving the style and number of the cause, stated: “Now comes the Express Publishing Company with office in Bexar County, Texas, defendant, and in answer to plaintiff’s petition,” (here follows the answer).
The filing of the answer had the effect of making the Express Publishing Company a defendant in the cause, and if it had not been properly served with citation, such an answer waived the necessity of the issuance and service of citation. Moreover, by the failure to assert the misnomer by a proper plea in abatement the same was waived. Houston Land & Loan Co. v. Danley, Tex.Civ.App., 131 S. W. 1143. Thereafter the trial court allowed Maude F. Butler to amend her original petition, in which the defendant, Express Publishing Company, was correctly named. That was the only purpose of the amendment. This conclusion clearly appears from a reading of the original petition and the amended original petition.
The facts of the present case are not similar to the cases relied upon by the appellee, and therefore those cases are not controlling. See Forbes Bros. Teas & Spice Co. v. McDougle, Cameron & Webster, Tex.Civ.App., 150 S.W. 745; McCord-Collins Co. v. Prichard, 37 Tex.Civ. App. 418, 84 S.W. 388, writ refused.
In the Forbes case, supra, it is said: “A mistake in the name of a defendant corporation, where citation is duly served on the proper party, must be taken advantage of by plea in abatement; and, when the defendant voluntarily answers to the merits, it cannot, after the action would be barred, plead limitation, when the plaintiff corrects the misnomer.”
The motion for rehearing is overruled.