been sued, and by whom and for what, so that due process will be served and he will have an opportunity to appear and defend the action. Sgitcovich v. Sgitcovich, 150 Tex. 398, 404, 241 S.W.2d 142, 146 (1951); Bozeman v. Arlington Heights Sanitarium, 134 S.W.2d 350, 351-52 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1939, writ ref'd). In Texas, a default judgment will not be rendered void when a defendant is served under the wrong name but is not misled or placed at a disadvantage by the pleadings and citation. Dezso v. Harwood, 926 S.W.2d 371, 374 (Tex.App.—Austin 1996, writ denied); Cockrell v. Estevez, 737 S.W.2d 138, 140 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1987, no writ). That principle applies equally in cases like this, where the defendant properly receives service but the ci (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1977) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 564 S.W.2d 697
recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that when a contract contemplates liquidated damages only for a specified breach the provision will have no force and effect except upon proof of the breach provided for by the agreement holding that suit to recover amount due for professional services was a liquidated claim proved by written instruments where plaintiff attached original invoices to verified petition and motion for default judgment holding that no reporters record was required in suit to recover damages for breach of employment contract because the claim for damages was liquidated and proved by the employment contract attached to the petition holding that where there was a breach of contract accompanied by aggravating factors that it was proper to treble the breach of contract damages