Crockett v. Diffie

1 Citing case

  1. Strawder v. Thomas

    846 S.W.2d 51 (Tex. App. 1992)   Cited 26 times
    Recognizing that an instrument is effective as filed when it has been received into the custody of the clerk of the court for filing

    It has been held on several occasions that the mere presence in court of an attorney, retained as counsel by a person formerly a party to the lawsuit, does not constitute a general appearance, unless the attorney seeks a judgment or an adjudication on some question. See St. Louis S.F. R.R. Co. v. Hale, 109 Tex. 251, 206 S.W. 75 (1918); Smith v. Amarillo Hosp. Dist., 672 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex.App. — Amarillo 1984, no writ); Investors Diversified Serv. v. Bruner, 366 S.W.2d 810, 815 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Crockett v. Diffie, 137 S.W.2d 167, 169 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1940, no writ); Lindsey v. Ferguson, 80 S.W.2d 407, 409 (Tex.Civ.App. — Eastland 1935, no writ). In view of the statements by Mr. Wauson and Ms. McCall that they were not making an appearance in the cross-action then being tried before the court, and in view of the further statement made by Mr. Cannon: