Court Opinion

ID: 9831175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:52:44.621173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:32.115963
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the original opinion, in passing upon the assignment complaining of the overruling of the plea of privilege to be sued in either of the counties of Potter, Hemphill, Galveston, Johnson, or Cooke, it was said that when appellant—
“saw fit to appear and except to the court’s action in making such order, and obtained the 60-day order in which to prepare and file a statement of facts and bills of exception it may well be considered that it waived its privilege that the case be tried on its merits in some county other than El Paso.”
This expression of opinion was not necessary to a decision of the question of venue, and it is perhaps not altogether in harmony with Railway Company v. Whitley, 77 Tex. 126, 13 S. W. 853, Railway Company v. *310Childs, 40 S. W. 41, Railway Company v. Adams, 4 Willson, Civ. Cas. Ct. App. § 12, 14 S. W. 1015, and Callhan v. Pemberton, 38 S. W. 227.
We therefore withdraw the expression quoted, and base our action in holding that venue was .properly laid in El Paso county upon the other ground indicated in the opinion, namely: That under the authority of Railway Company v. Buie, 95 Tex. 51, 65 S. W. 27, 55 L. R. A. 861, the defendant was doing business in El Paso county through the instrumentality of a Texas corporation, and had a line of railway in said county with offices and agents therein, as is fully set forth in the original opinion.
What is said in this opinion upon rehearing refers exclusively to the assignment which complains of the overruling of the plea of privilege. It does not relate to the jurisdictional question.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.