or demand required or permitted by law to be served on the entity.” Tex. Bus. Orgs.Code Ann. § 5.201(b)(1) (West 2012). Because the law permits WCT to be sued in its assumed name, CT Corp. could be served with process using WCT’s assumed name, and the record reflects that service was effected on CT Corp., and thereby on WCT, on November 26, 2012, prior to the expiration of the limitations period. See PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267, 274 ( suit filed naming “Morton Hyson, M.D.” as defendant was suit against Morton Hyson, M.D., P.A. which used Morton Hyson, M.D. as an assumed or common name and association was served through its only officer and director who did business under the same name); Northwest Sign Co. v. Jack H. Brown & Co., Inc., 680 S.W.2d 808, 808-09 (Tex.1984) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion Because we hold service was
recognizing south carolina as a jurisdiction where service on statutory agent is exclusive holding service of process defective when the receipt card was signed by someone who was not the registered agent holding service on registered agent jack h brown was service on jack h brown  company dba signgraphics even though jack h brown was also the registered agent for signgraphics inc 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 on hospital corporation of america dba tidelands general hospital was service on the assumed name and constituted service on hca health services inc dba tidelands general hospital because ct corporation system was the registered agent for both