Mid-Co Petroleum Co. v. Allen

Opinion by

MAXEY, C-

The first proposition argued by the plaintiff in error is stated thus: “Defendant’s motion to quash the summons and service thereof should have been sustained.” In our judgment the summons is regular' on its face under the rules of this court. The complaint is that the copy of ithe summons served did not fix the answer date, but the date was left blank. The fourth ground of the motion to quash was that ithe statute authorizing iho service was unconstitutional and void. We think this '«las asking for affirmative relief and constituted a general appearance. We 'think the mo…