*1 not motion Southwest has shown this Court We have considered Southwest’s rehearing, possesses property right that for and it is overruled. Accord- vested ingly, may competi of dismissal of the district protect which it from unlawful order court is affirmed. tion. Southwest does not hold a franchise Authority not that from the and does assert Authority regulates any business Authority that
Southwest. We note agency in Southwest status participated agen and that in the Southwest reasons, cy hearing. foregoing For the we overrule error two. three, point In of error Southwest asserts HUBERT, Appellant, R. Carl that the trial court erred in its determination standing the airline did not have ILLINOIS STATE ASSISTANCE pursue judicial the suit review. Because COMMISSION, Appellee. have we determined court did cause, jurisdiction do have over the we No. A14-93-00121-CV. point three. Texas, Appeals
Court of Dist.). (14th one, point In of error Southwest as failing in serts that the trial court erred Dec. findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rehearing Denied Jan. timely request findings Southwest filed a fact and conclusions of law and a notice of past findings due of fact and conclusions of Generally,
law. Tex.R.Civ.P. findings failure to file of fact and conclusions Anzaldua, of law is error. Anzaldua v. (Tex.App —Corpus . Indus., denied); see Cheme Inc. Magallanes, 763 presumed The failure is harmful unless the “affirmatively the com record shows injury.” plaining party has suffered no Indus., Inc., Cherne Riske, Wagner Tex. 117, 120 We conclude that the record here affirmatively shows that did not Southwest any injury to file
suffer from the failure findings of fact and conclusions of law. The
only at the in the evidence admitted agency trial court was the record. The dis jurisdic trict court stated its conclusions standing in the order of dismissal. Nevertheless, Southwest states its brief identify spe that it “has unable to been reasoning in cific bases of the trial court’s dismissing” After consideration of the case. disagree and overrule we point of error.
Southwest’s *2 Houston, Stephens, appellant. M.
Delia Weltman, Chaplan, L. Andrew M. Steven Houston, Mary Thompson, appellee. C. BROWN, C.J., and Before J. CURTISS LEE, ELLIS and JJ.
OPINION
LEE, Justice.
The trial court three student appellee in favor of a suit on as a matter of on each loans made to from 1969 law element Traylor reverse. We of its cause of action. v. Unitedbank Orange, Appellee, Illinois Student Assistance Com- —Beaumont The mo mission, as, formerly known Illinois State *3 supporting tion and its show evidence must Commission, Scholarship appellant, sued judgment that the movant entitled as a Carl R. Hubert for the balance due on three matter of law. McFadden v. American 14, 1969, promissory notes dated November Co., 147, United Ins. 658 S.W.2d 148 3, 1970, 26, August August and 1971. Each Life (Tex.1983). Even if the does not non-movant $1,500.00, principal note was in the amount of response summary file a and the motion for bearing per annum interest at a rate of 7% uneontroverted, judgment is the movant still fully paid. Payments until the notes were proof. City carries the burden of to made to Illinois Na- were be Continental of Auth., 671, Basin 589 Clear Creek Company Chicago. Bank A tional & Trust of (Tex.1979). 678 The burden never shifts to copy plaintiffs of each note is attached to the 1, 1989, original petition, February the non-movant until the movant has estab filed on plaintiffs original petition summary judg to a and amended lished entitlement 6, Brand, July filed on 1992. The filed his as a matter of law. Casso v. ment 13, (Tex.1989). original 551, answer on March 1989. The 556 The court 776 S.W.2d statute of limitations defense was not raised summary judg must view the evidence in a in this answer. light ment case the most favorable to the Every non-movant. reasonable inference August A 4, was set for indulged must be in favor of the non-movant appellee’s summary judg 1992 on motion for any and doubts resolved in its favor. Nixon Appellant ment. filed a motion for leave to Co., Property Management v. Mr. response summary file a motion for the 546, 3, However, judgment August on 1992. record does not reflect that leave of court Appellee’s cause of action is for granted. Appellant also filed an amend recovery applicable of debt. The statute days summary ed answer within seven four-year period. of limitations is a Tex.Civ. hearing.1 The trial court (Vernon § 16.004 PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. appellee’s summary judgment motion for 1986). A cause of action on note accrues 15, October 1992. date, stated, upon its or if no date is on the brings of error con- date of issue. Tex.Bus. & Ann. Com.Code tending granting the trial court erred in sum- (Vernon 1968). § 3.122 mary judgment. Appellant complains of question maturity notes in all contained a cross-claim, trial of court’s dismissal 1, 1972, date of November or a date within grant and refusal to his motion for continu- study five months after cessation of full-time ance. institution, approved at an educational which of issue of the prevail To on a motion for sum ever occurred first. The dates 14, 1969, 3, mary August judgment, the movant must show as a notes were November 26, 1970, genuine August Appellee origi matter of law that there are no and 1971. 1, February Appel- nally filed suit on issues of fact. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a. The mov- July summary original petition on ant must that it is entitled to lee filed his amended show Gonzales, 509, party. Rogers Except 654 S.W.2d on leave of the non-movant must 1983, n.r.e.). opposing any response (Tex.App. Corpus and affidavits at least writ ref'd — summary judgment days seven ing. before the hear summary judgment proceeding is a trial within A response to sum 166a. If Tex.R.Civ.P. meaning 63. See Leche v. the Stautz, of Tex.R.Civ.P. late, grant mary judgment is filed the court must 1965, 386 S.W.2d — Austin response leave to file the or it will not be before shows that Unless the record Bryant, the court. INA Texas v. 686 S.W.2d of denied, appellate leave was courts will as 1985). (Tex. granted. Metropolitan it was Goswami v. sume Pleading sought days within seven amendments Assn, 487, 490-91 Loan granted unless there of the time trial are to be showing surprise to the has been a opposite Center, Inc., 108 S.Ct. Thus, 485 U.S. appears from the face in the instant The record L.Ed.2d 75 which form the founda the debt instruments no of these part show that either and are case does not appellee’s cause of action by Rules of given, be tices were appellee’s the record does on the Where appellee’s court that suit Civil Procedure. fore the trial given, and the notice was statute of that such promissory notes is barred show asserts, without Burger, Inc. v. Phil to such notice limitation. “Moore” entitled (Tex. Co., contradiction, the notice was lips Petroleum rules, appar 1972); required by the the defect Siegel Drilling 530 as v. McGavock L.B.L. face of the record. See ent from the — Amarillo Serv., Inc., words, appellee’s v. Int’l Powers In other Oil Co. *4 (Tex.1989); Lopez Lopez, summary judgment evidence established own (Tex.1988); Ridge Falcon of statute of appellant’s affirmative defense S.W.2d therefore, Elec. Apartments, to Venture General limitations and to be entitled Joint (Tex.App produce 22-23 summary judgment appellee must . —Hous negat no summary judgment evidence ton [1st Dist.] sufficient running period limitations ing the the face of the debt instruments. shown on requires adequate process Due by appellee. produced was No such evidence order is entered notice be before an summary judgment evi the movant’s Unless prosecution. dismissing suit for want of sufficient, is legally the nonmovant dence Ass’n., Enter., Indep. Am. Tramco produce to (Tex.App Worth . —Fort controverting the movant’s sum State, 1987, writ); also Rotello v. see mary judgment proof in order to avoid an [1st — Houston Sakowitz, summary judgment. adverse curiam, n.r.e., Dist.]), per refd Steck, 105,107
Inc. v. fail Because a Accordingly, appellant’s first second party of give deprives notice ure to such points of error are sustained. court, an by the such right its to be heard than a mere viola omission constitutes more point of contends Appellant’s third error practice. Falcon procedural tion of rules of dismissing that the trial court erred Tramco, Ridge, 795 S.W.2d at against third-party action G.C. Services. Appellant’s third at 948. by appellee to collect Services was hired G.C. sustained. debt from the three notes. with contends appellant’s first disposition our Due to appellant opportunity or an no notice to necessary to it is not hearing, party dismissed the third action. point of error. appellant’s fourth Appellee argues present judgment of the trial court is reversed and thus not harmed proceedings. for further and remanded alleged provide court’s failure to notice of Appellee argues that intent to dismiss. C.J., BROWN, concurring. or made a was never served
G.C. Services J. CURTISS party to the third action. only. I in the results concur Texas Rule of Civil PROCEDURE imposes duty on the clerk 165a an affirmative give court’s trial court to notice of the prose a case for want intention dismiss cution, and Texas Rule PROCEDURE Civil give of its requires that the court notice
306a give such
order of dismissal. The failure process of due under notice is a denial Amendment to the United States Fourteenth Heights Medical Peralta v. Constitution.