Court Opinion

ID: 9827367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:27:08.162596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:29.705762
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant complains because we did not discuss and give our reasons for not sustaining his points 3 and 4, which relate to the action of the trial court in overruling his special exceptions Nos. 2 and 3. These exceptions read as follows:
“The defendant specially excepts to the Plaintiff’s Controverting Plea because there are not sufficient facts sworn to and stated under oath by the plaintiff to show *520a cause of action against this defendant and to show that venue of this case is in Refugio County, and of this special exception the defendant prays judgment of the court.
!*' “The defendant specially excepts to the Plaintiff’s Controverting Plea because there are not enough facts alleged therein to show that this defendant or its agents, servants or employees did or committed the damages, trespasses, torts and acts, if any, on which the plaintiff’s cause of action, if any, is based, and of this special exception the defendant prays judgment of the Court.”
The trial court properly overruled these exceptions: the controverting affidavit, among other things, stated in effect that the suit was one for damages to real estate situated in Refugio County, Texas. As stated in our original opinion, these allegations were sufficient to bring the case under section 14 of Art. 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. The nature of the suit should always be determined by a mere reference to the petition, whether such petition is adopted as a part of the controverting affidavit or not. Cox v. Palacios, Tex.Civ.App., 188 S.W.2d 688; City of Corpus Christi v. Live Oak County, Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 226; Sims v. Trinity Farm Construction Co., Tex.Civ.App., 28 S.W.2d 856.
Appellant’s motion for a rehearing is overruled.