Case ID: sw2d_619/html/0038-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HUGHES, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph F. CORPENING, Individually and as Independent Executor of the Estate of A. V. Corpening, Jr., Deceased, and as Trustee of the A. V. Corpening, Jr. Inter Vivos Trust, Appellants, v. A. V. CORPENING III, Joseph D. Corpening, Ann S. Corpening, Individually and as Next Friend of Melissa Corpening, a Minor, Appellees.
    No. 18443.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.
    July 2, 1981.
    Rehearing Denied July 30, 1981.
    Watson, Ice & McGee, Fort Worth, The Montgomery Law Firm, and Elton M. Montgomery, Graham, for appellants.
    McDonald, Sanders, Ginsburg, Phillips, Maddox & Newkirk and Robert S. Newkirk, Fort Worth, for appellees.
   OPINION

HUGHES, Justice.

This is a venue case. At an earlier stage in the development of this case we dismissed an appeal from the trial court’s order overruling the defendant’s plea of privilege. Corpening v. Corpening, 608 S.W.2d 329 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1980, rev’d and remanded, 615 S.W.2d 186 (Tex.1981). The controlling facts of this ease are stated in our previous opinion and in the Supreme Court’s opinion.

We remain convinced that the defendant waived the right to assert a plea of privilege by first filing a general denial; by making appearances at hearings; and by approving orders of the trial court. We therefore adopt by reference the conclusions stated in our previous opinion except for the conclusions relating to propriety of summary dismissal of the appeal.

Even though the conclusions previously stated do not suffice to justify summary dismissal of the appeal we hold they are sufficient to affirm the order overruling the defendant’s plea of privilege.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.