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: