Court Opinion

ID: 9764336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:19:16.781631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:55.890764
License: Public Domain

STEPHEN F. PRESLAR, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the procedure of dismissing the appeal. I would reverse the judgment of the trial court and direct *462the trial court to dismiss the venue cause of action.
This is a void judgment under Section 4(b) of Article 1995 as amended and effective September 1, 1983. That subsection provides that venue of third-party claims is established by the venue of the main action. The court then could not entertain this plea by the third-party defendant. Because there is no provision in law allowing this venue plea, the judgment is void. Stated otherwise, the trial court was without jurisdiction of any venue issue attempted by this third-party defendant.
“On the appeal to the court of civil appeals of a cause of which the trial court did not have jurisdiction, the proper practice is not to dismiss the appeal but to reverse the judgment and remand the cause with the direction that it be dismissed.” Fruit Dispatch Co. v. Rainey, 111 Tex. 266, 232 S.W. 281 (1921). See also, In re Marriage of Gillman, 507 S.W.2d 610 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo, 1974, writ dism’d); Amigo Helicopters, Inc. v. Jones, 488 S.W.2d 473 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1972, no writ); Speaker v. Lawler, 463 S.W.2d 741 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Jacobson v. Wood, 142 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1940, no writ).
I agree with the majority that the trial court was in error in trying this matter under the terms of Article 1995 prior to its amendment effective September 1, 1983. In the Graue-Haws, Inc. case mentioned by the majority, everything in regard to the venue plea happened prior to September 1, 1983, except the hearing. The defendant in that case was served in July and had to respond to that pleading under the old Article 1995. That was the basis of the writer’s dissent in that case. In the case before us, the defendant was not served until August 30, 1983, and the time for filing his plea of privilege did not arise until after September 1; it is then controlled by the amended Article 1995.
I would avoid any further delay in this matter and reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause with directions that the trial court dismiss the plea of privilege.