Back to Main Page / Back to List of Rules
Rule 106. Service of Citation (1981)
(a) Unless the citation or an order of the court otherwise directs, the citation shall be served by any officer authorized by Rule 103 by
(1) delivering to the defendant, in person, a true copy of the citation with the date of delivery endorsed thereon with a copy of the petition attached thereto, or
(2) mailing to the defendant by registered or certified mail, with delivery restricted to addressee only, return receipt requested, a true copy of the citation with a copy of the petition attached thereto.
(b) Upon motion supported by affidavit stating the location of the defendant's usual place of business or usual place of abode or other place where the defendant can probably be found and stating specifically the facts showing that service has been attempted under either (a)(l) or (a)(2) at the location named in such affidavit but has not been successful, the court may authorize service
(1) by an officer or by any disinterested adult named in the court's order by leaving a true copy of the citation, with a copy of the petition attached, with anyone over sixteen years of age at the location specified in such affidavit, or
(2) in any other manner that the affidavit or other evidence before the court shows will be reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of the suit.
Amended by order of June 10, 1980, eff. Jan. 1, 1981: The rule is reorganized to clarify its meaning: Alternate methods of service are authorized if either (a)(1) or (a)(2) are tried without success. Both methods are not required.
|Prior Amendments||Future Amendments|
|Oct. 29, 1940, eff. Sept. 1, 1941||July 15, 1987, eff. Jan. 1, 1988|
|Aug. 18, 1947, eff. Dec. 31, 1947||April 24, 1990, eff. Sept. 1, 1990|
|July 22, 1975, eff. Jan. 1, 1976|
|July 11, 1977, eff. Jan. 1, 1978|
(No. 25) Question: Should the official or party making his return on a citation or notice as provided for by Rules 107 and 108 show in such return that the copy delivered to the defendant had endorsed thereon the date of such delivery as is provided for in Rule 106?
Answer: In view of the fact that Rule 107 requires the return to show "the manner of service," we are of the opinion that the return should show that the date of delivery was endorsed on the copy of citation or notice in accordance with Rule 106, because Rule 106 makes such endorsement a part of the manner of service.
5 Tex. B.J. 168 (1942) reprinted in 8 Tex. B.J. 13 (1945).
(No. 80) Question: If the officer serving a citation fails to endorse “the date of delivery" upon the copy of the citation which is delivered to the defendant as required by Rule 106, does the trial court have jurisdiction to the extent that a judgment by default can be taken, provided the service was correct in other respects?
Answer: In our opinion the failure of the officer to endorse the date of delivery upon the copy of the citation delivered to the defendant does not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court to' render a default judgment.
Such endorsement does not constitute a part of the citation itself, and it is merely for the convenience of the defendant to relieve him from the uncertainty of his own memory or from the inconvenience of referring to the officer's return in order to make sure of the date of service. The fact that Rule 107 precludes the rendition of a default judgment until the officer's return shall have been on file with the clerk for ,at least ten days, assures to the defendant and his attorney ample opportunity to make certain of the date of service, in event the officer fails to note said date on the copy delivered to the defendant. This provision tends to show that the notation of the date on the defendant's copy is not mandatory in the sense that failure to comply therewith would invalidate the service. In our opinion a default judgment is valid notwithstanding the officer fails to make said notation on the copy delivered to the defendant.
In this connection, however, we feel that if the defendant seasonably moves to set aside the default judgment and shows that he was in fact injured or misled by the officer's failure to endorse the date of service upon his copy, in such a case the trial court should set aside the default judgment and give defendant an opportunity to appear and have a trial on the merits. This would be in harmony with Rule 1 and with the general spirit of all the rules which indicates that the rules should be so construed as to attain real justice between the parties.6 Tex. B.J. 20 (1943) reprinted in 8 Tex. B.J. 30 (1945).