Court Opinion

ID: 9832246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:45:22.564515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:44.675891
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Upon consideration of appellee’s motion for rehearing, we are convinced we were in error in holding that appellee, as a matter of law, waived its plea of privilege by previously presenting and having the court act upon its motion to quash the service of citation. The question, upon original submission of the case, was not briefed, and the authorities which we followed were found in a digest under a title head which we felt justified in assuming contained a reference to all of the cases upon the point. It seems that such was not the fact. Based upon both the reasoning and authority of St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co. v. Whitley, 77 Tex. 126, 13 S. W. 853, Atchison T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Adams (Tex. Sup.) 14 S. W. 1015, Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Childs (Tex. Civ. App.) 40 S. W 41, Ramsey & Son v. Cook (Tex. Civ. App.) 151 S. W. 346, and Cooper v. C. & S. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 298 S. W. 612, we are constrained to hold that the motion to quash at the previous term did not constitute a waiver of the plea of privilege duly filed to the term at which defendant was required to’ answer. For that reason the motion for rehearing is granted. The judgment of this court heretofore entered reversing the judgment of the trial court and remanding the case is set aside, and judgment now rendered in all things affirming the judgment of the trial court.