Flynt v. City of Kingsville

Tex.

Court: Supreme Court of Texas

Citations: 125 Tex. 510, 82 S.W.2d 934, 1935 Tex. LEXIS 341

Decision Date: 5/15/1935

Docket Number: No. 6343

Jurisdiction: TX

Bluebook Citation: Flynt v. City of Kingsville, 125 Tex. 510, 82 S.W.2d 934, 1935 Tex. LEXIS 341 (Tex. 1935)

More Cases: Tex. decisions from 1935


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Highly CitedTop 5% most-cited · cited by 81 decisions
81
Citing decisions
11
Authorities cited
4
Courts citing

Citations by decade

2
4
1
8
25
19
5
10
6
1
1930s1940s1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

Tex. Civ. App.40
Tex. App.30
Tex.9
Tex. Crim. App.2
Most recently cited by10
  • 2023Dashinau Cato v. Michelle Y. Smith-Cato Tex. App.
  • 2015Michael J. DeLitta And DeLCom Properties, LLC v. Nancy Schaefer Tex. App.
  • 2015Monte Montgomery v. Monty Hitchcock Tex. App.
  • 2015Elishah Sawyers, Pax Crate & Freight, Inc. and Robin Sawyers v. Marc Carter and Sally Carter Tex. App.
  • 2015Levent Ulusal v. Lentz Engineering, L C Tex. App.
  • 2015Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Saratoga Timber Co., Ltd., Batson Corridor, L.P., and Timbervest Partners Texas, L.P. Tex. App.
  • 2013Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Hall Tex. App.
  • 2009Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania v. Lejeune Tex.
  • 2008Bobby C. Thomas v. Crystal D. Wheeler, Individually and as Next Friend for Jalean M. Wheeler and Jayla M. Wheeler Tex. App.
  • 2007Wachovia Bank of Delaware, National Ass'n v. Gilliam Tex.
Cites 11 casesshowing 8
  • Carlton v. Miller
  • De Proy v. Progakis
  • State Mortgage Corp. v. Traylor
  • Flynt v. City of Kingsville
  • Ware v. Clark
  • Bilby v. Rodgers
  • Bomar v. Morris
  • Friend v. Thomas

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

T. A. Flynt v. City of Kingsville.

Attorneys

  • E. B. and Howell Ward, of Corpus Christi, for plaintiff in error.
  • C. L. Gordon and E. H. Crenshaw, Jr., both of Kingsville, for defendant in error.
majority Mr. Presiding Judge RYAN

Delivered the opinion of the Commission of Appeals, Section B.

This suit was instituted in the District Court of Kleberg County, by the City of Kingsville, against T. A. Flynt and his wife to recover a paving assessment against them as abutting property owners. No contract or lien was signed by them. The defendants did not appear or answer and judgment by default was rendered against them, jointly and severally, for "$197¡76, with interest at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum, for $100.00 as an attorney’s fee incurred by plaintiff, taxed as costs of suit, and foreclosure of lien upon certain real estate situated in the City of Kingsville.

On writ of error sued out by Flynt and wife to the Court of Civil Appeals, the judgment was reversed and rendered in favor of the wife, affirmed as to T.- A. Flynt and costs of appeal taxed against the city. 50 S. W. (2d) 414.

Application for writ of error was granted by the Supreme Court, on the first assignment, as follows:

“The Court of Civil Appeals erred in affirming the judgment against T. A. Flynt, because there was no appearance by and the record shows no proper service upon him to warrant the rendition of a judgment against him by the trial court.”

This assignment is sustained. The record here contains no copy of any citation or instrument to show an appearance by the defendants in the trial court.

1 A judgment by default without proper service of citation is void. State Mortgage Corp. v. Traylor, 120 Texas, 148, 36 S. W. (2d) 440; Levy v. Roper, 113 Texas, 356, 256 S. W., 251. On a direct attack, such as this, the usual presumption of service because of the recital in the judgment, “that defendants though duly and legally cited to appear and answer, came not but wholly made default” does not obtain and the error resulting from the absence in the record of the necessary showing, necessitates a reversal of the judgment.

The court held in Burditt v. Howth, 45 Texas, 466, on appeal, where the record does not show service on, or appearance by the defendants, a recital in the judgment by default that.the defendants were duly served with process, will not be considered evidence of service so as to sustain the judgment; otherwise, when the judgment is collaterally attacked.

2 On an appeal from a default judgment the record must show an appearance by the defendant or due service of citation independent of the recitals in the judgment. 3 Texas Jur., p. 407, sec. 290; Hart v. Weatherford, 19 Texas, 57; Bomar v, Morris, 59 Texas Civ. App., 378, 126 S. W., 663; Friend v. Thomas, 187 S. W., 986; Doak v. Biggs, 235 S. W., 957; Glasscock v. Barnard, 58 Texas Civ. App., 369, 125 S. W., 616; Carleton v. Miller, 2 Texas Civ. App., 619, 21 S. W., 697. See also Article 2278, Rev. Stat., 1925; Steger v. May, 202 S. W., 989; Ware v. Clark, 125 S. W., 618; Dougherty v. Powell, 139 S. W., 625; De Prey v. Progakis (Com. App.), 269 S. W., 78.

Other assignments contained in the application for writ of error tender issues which can be decided only after proper pleadings by the defendants, proof and hearing in the trial court. As we have seen, the defendants filed no pleadings whatever in the trial court and therefore we need not consider them.

The judgments of the District Court and Court of Civil Appeals are reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court May 15, 1935. Rehearing overruled July 3, 1935.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.