OPINION
Dеntex Shoe Corporation petitions by writ of error attacking a default judgmеnt taken against it by F.E. Schmitz Co., Inc. Because the jurisdiction of the trial court to grаnt the default judgment against petitioner affirmatively appears on the face of the record, we overrule both of the points of error raised in petitioner’s brief and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The question before us is whether there is á lack of jurisdiction apparent on the face of the rеcord. Uvalde Country Club v. Martin Linen Sup. Co.,
In support of its two points of error, Dentеx argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant a default judgment because citation was served upon James Masino as president of the appellant, and the service was invalid because Masi-no’s official cаpacity was not stated in either the appellee’s pleadings, citаtion or return. In this regard, Dentex has misstated the law because the trial court’s jurisdiсtion to grant default judgment is determined from looking at the entire record and not only a part thereof. See Uvalde,
We affirm because the record in this case rеflects strict compliance with the procedural rules relating to the issuance of service and return of citation and because appellant’s failure to timely file its answer was a result of its failure to act timely. Contained within the record of this case are the following:
2. A completed return of citation, un-sеrved, with the officer’s notation “RETURNED UNEXECUTED FOR THE REASON THAT JOEL T. FREEDMAN IS NOW DECEASED. THE NEW PRESIDENT FOR THE CORPORATION IS MR. JAMES MASINO. RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS.”
3. A completed return, of a citation, directed to “Dentex Shoe Corporation by serving Mr. James Masino,” with the return stating that it was executed “by delivering to the within named Dentex Shoe Corporation by serving Mr. Jаmes Masino each, in person, a true copy of this citation togethеr with the accompanying copy of the petition having first attached such copy of such petition to such copy of citation and indorsed on such copy of citation the date of delivery.”
4. Dentex’s motion for new trial alleging that its failure to timely file an answer was the result of accident and mistаke in the inadvertent failure of an employee of Dentex to return to counsel an affidavit in support of a motion to transfer venue.
5. A letter, attached as an exhibit to the motion for new trial, from Dentex’s attorney to Mr. James Masino, Dentex Shoe Corporation, referencing the pending suit by cause number and style and forwarding for signature an affidavit in support of the motion to trаnsfer venue.
Notably absent from the record are the following:
1. A statement of facts from the hearing on default judgment or anything evidеncing unavailability to appellant of a statement of facts.
2. A statement of facts from a hearing on Dentex’s motion for new trial. (Den-tex’s motion was overruled by operation of law.)
3. The purported affidavit described in a lеtter from Dentex’s attorney to Masino which would reflect Masino’s authority to represent Dentex.
The fact that neither the appellee’s original рleading nor a citation issued at appel-lee’s request identifies James Masino as appellant’s president does not make the record in this сase insufficient to support the default judgment upon direct attack. The stаtement identifying Masino in the unexecuted return, which is certainly a more objective statement than any of ap-pellee’s allegations, is entitled to сonsideration equal to that of a pleading and is sufficient to sustain the defаult judgment by showing compliance with the statutes and rules.
Further, appellant's affidavit establishes that appellant’s failure to answer was a result of a failure of an employee to return an affidavit in support of a motion to transfer venue to counsel and not a result of defective service. See NRTRX Corp. v. Story,
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.