Court Opinion

ID: 9778111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:32:57.101976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:03.824580
License: Public Domain

REEVES, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I agree that the trial court’s order dismissing the case cannot stand. However, I agree with plaintiffs’ contention that they are entitled to a jury resolution of questions of fact which must be determined in order to dispose of the plea in abatement and Rule 12 motion. Hernandez v. Light Publishing Co., 245 S.W.2d 553, 554 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1952, writ ref’d) clearly recognizes that plaintiff, but for his waiver, would have been entitled to a jury trial irrespective of whether the plea in question was a plea in bar. Buchanan v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co., 400 S.W.2d 362, 366 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1966, writ ref’d n.r.e.) implies that plaintiff would have been entitled to a jury trial if the plea in abatement had raised a question of fact.
The pleadings in this case require a determination of questions of fact which are absolutely essential to the right of plaintiffs to file this suit. The right of plaintiffs to a jury trial should not be abridged.