the name on the lawsuit was incorrect, but, when Ronje offered to take the petition and citation back, Jesse said that he was the person being sued and to leave the documents with him. Based on the uncontroverted evidence, we conclude that service on Jesse was not defective. See Dezso, 926 S.W.2d at 373-74. Like Jesse, Southern Customs does not assert that it was misled by the misnomer. However, Southern Customs’s claim raises a slightly different issue in that the name of the party served, “Southern Custom’s [sic] By [sic] delivery to Robert Sutherland,” is not the complete name of the party in the petition and citation. See Hercules Concrete Pumping Serv., Inc. v. Bencon Mgmt. & Gen. Contracting Corp., 62 S.W.3d 308, 311 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g) (<HOLDING>). However, “[t]here is no showing in the record
holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding service of process defective when the return receipt is not signed by the addressee holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service holding in restricted appeal that service was defective when the return cited service on hercules concrete pumping and not on hercules concrete pumping service inc holding that an attempted service on the partys counsel was insufficient without proof of the counsels actual authority to receive service