Case Name: JACKSON et al. v. RICORD
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1941-06-11
Citations: 152 S.W.2d 910
Docket Number: No. 11015
Parties: JACKSON et al. v. RICORD.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 152
Pages: 910–911

Head Matter:
JACKSON et al. v. RICORD.
No. 11015.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
June 11, 1941.
Rehearing Denied July 2, 1941.
Joe Burkett, of San Antonio, and Joe Burkett, Jr., of Kerrville, for appellants.
Fred Felty and John Peace, Jr., both of San Antonio, for appellee.

Opinion:
NORVELL, Justice.
This is an appeal from an order overruling a plea of privilege. When the question of privilege is raised by plea, it is necessary that said plea be "sworn to" (Art. 2007, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats.), and that the "affidavit of the facts sworn to must be so direct and unequivocal as that an indictment for perjury would lie, if the oath is falsely made." Witt & Sons v. Stith, Tex.Civ.App., 265 S.W. 1076, 1078; Smith v. Banks, Tex.Civ.App., 152 S.W. 449; Whitemore & Co. v. Wilson, 1 Posey Unrep.Cas. 213.
From the notary's certificate ' appended to the plea of privilege here involved, it appears that appellants did not swear that the allegations of the plea of privilege were true, but that they acknowledged to the notary public "that they executed the same (presumedly the plea of privilege) for the purposes and consideration therein expressed."
As "a plea of privilege not properly sworn to would not authorize a court to change the venue, as such an instrument would be without any probative , force" (Rogers v. Alexander, Tex.Civ.App., 289 S.W. 1070, 1071), we conclude that the trial court entered the proper order, which is accordingly affirmed.