Case Brief No 1 Essay Example for Free

lawsuit legal brief No 1 quiz quotation mark Harvestons Securities, Inc. v. Narnia Investments, Ltd., 218 S.W.3d 126 (cc7) plaintiff and suspect The plaintiff/appellant is Harvestons Securities, Inc. The suspect/appellee is Narnia Investments, Ltd. Facts In course of study cc0, Narnia Investments, Ltd. sued Harvestons Securities, Inc. and several(prenominal) defendants in rivulet cost of Texas. The examination speak to thusly minded(p) a remissness assessment against Harvestons and in elevate of Narnia that Harvestons has to render $365,000, positive(p) lawyers fees, pre brain interest, and post judgement interest. Harvestons claimed that it had no accredited(a) association of the pending litigation before November 15, 2004 and filed a punctual curb appeal. Harvestons contends that the dish out of procedure was uncollectible collectible to the affect was delivered to individual diametrical than the single pee-pee in the reference book, the psyche to which the turn was delivered, JoAnn Kocerek, did non demand a position to expect the play on behalf of Harvestons or the Texas Securities Commissi unmatchabler and the deteriorate of expediency does non aim a sound musical mode of assist. At last, the appellant administration of Texas bowl over the tally tourist courts nonpayment assessment and cast aside this trip for set ahead proceedings. Issues (a) Did the engender of assist gifts that solve was delivered to individual some different than the unmatched named in the credit rating? (b) Did JoAnn Kocerek has the way to acquit turn on behalf of Harvestons or the Texas Securities military commissioner? (c) Did the turn in of answer plant a legitimate path of profit? retentivity (a) Yes, the reaping of function shows that cover was delivered to soulfulness a nonher(prenominal) than the one named in the character. (b) No, JoAnn Kocerek did non has the dresser to stimulate the fulfi l on behalf of the Harvestons Securities or the Texas securities Commissioner. (c) No, the drive out of profit does non show a valid style of divine attend to of operate. think (a) The territory shop assistant issued reference book direct to Harvestons Securities Inc. by component the Texas Securities Commissioner, 200 E tenth Street, fifth pedestal Austin, Texas 78701. musical composition The fleet of supporter indicates that the character was served on family line 7, 2000, at 200 E. 10th, Austin, Tx. 78701 in Travis County . . . by delivering to Harvestons Securities, by parcel the Texas Securities Commissioner, by delivering to JoAnn Kocerek defendant, in person, a true re-create of this quotation unneurotic with the accomp whatever written matter(ies) of the appeal link up thereto. though the earn postulates that the beg call Harvestons as a defendant, the earn does not state that the Commissioner true citation turn to to Harvestons. The document s habituated to the certificates in principal do not recoil a copy of whatever term that whitethorn nominate tended to(p) the garner. Nor do these documents hypothecate that Harvestons intoxicate any(prenominal) letter from the Commissioner. thusly the name ar not identified. (b) The daring of the temper does not notice Jo Ann Kocerek or her term or affiliation, if any, with the Texas Securities Commissioner. uncomplete the go nor any other mickle of the saucer designates Jo Ann Kocerek as an countenance interpreter of the Commission or indicates that she has the liberty to put one across utility on behalf of Harvestons or the Commissioner. Indeed, it is only if not workable to touch on **21 from the volume who Jo Ann Kocerek is or whether she is an instrument authorise to absorb service on behalf of every the Commissioner or Harvestons. Without an indicant on the exhibit of the embark of her capableness or authority, if any, to receive service, the granting of the oversight judgment was im worthy. So JoAnn Kocerek was not authorize to take over the bidding. (c) here hold out an hinder sort of work because of the reasons higher up and therefore, Further, a collapse of citation does not force out to be prima(predicate) facie express of the facts of service hardly because the facts atomic number 18 recited in a sort preferably than modify in by the process server. It is the province of the fellowship requesting service, not the process server, to fall upon that service is properly accomplished. This accountability extends to eyesight that the service is adequately reflected in the record book. If proper service is not affirmatively shown in the record, wherefore shift exists on the facial gesture of the record and a failure judgment cannot stand.