Court Opinion

ID: 9828055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:03:05.669141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:42.410329
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant and appellee have each filed long motions for rehearing, and each of the parties is asking this court to pass on the issues presented in their respective briefs. The appellant, however, insists that his plea of privilege should have been sustained and the cause transferred to Hamilton county, and that the district court of Bosque county has no jurisdiction over him. There are some very interesting questions presented in the record, and if we thought it was proper we would not hesitate to express our opinion. The case was disposed of originally on the question of the plea of privilege. We have carefully examined the motions filed and the authorities cited, and we think the disposition we made of the case was proper, and that the motions for rehearing should be overruled. Unless the district court of Bosque county had venue, same having been properly challenged, it did not have the power to pass on any other question raised by the pleadings or evidence, and the appellate court should not attempt to adjudicate any question on appeal, unless same has been legally passed on by the district court. It is, so far as we have been able to find, the uniform holding of the appellate courts, where it was determined that the district court was without jurisdiction, not to pass on any other issues.
In Slaven v. Wheeler, 58 Tex. 23, the court held the trial judge was disqualified, and, after so holding, used this language:
“This being true, that it would be unjust to the parties to express any view in respect to the subject-matter of the litigation.”
In Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., v. Hale, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 447, 120 S. W. 539, the trial judge was held to be disqualified by reason of being a member of the order. The case was reversed for that reason, and the court used this language:
“We deem it both unnecessary and improper to pass on the other questions suggested in griefs of both parties.”
. In Lumsden v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.) 227 S. W. 358, the court reversed the cause and used this language:
“We will not discuss this assignment [which raised the question of the sufficiency of the evidence] in view of another trial. It is not proper for this court to express an opinion upon the weight of or the sufficiency of the evidence upon any issue to be subsequently tried by a jury.”
In Ogburn-Dalchau Lumber Co. v. Taylor, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 442, 126 S. W. 48, the question of venue was raised. The trial court overruled the plea of privilege, and tried the case on its merits, and rendei*ed judgment for the plaintiff on the facts. The appellate court held that the plea of privilege under the facts should have been sustained, and reversed the case, with instructions to sustain the plea, and in disposing of the case used this language:
“There are some other errors growing out of the answers of the jury to the questions submitted by the court, some of which are material and others not, but, in view of the disposition we make of the case, we think it unnecessary to notice them, in as much as they will probably not occur upon another trial.” .
In the instant case, the parties are raising a number of issues and asking for this court’s construction of the pleadings and the legal effect of the written documents and the sufficiency of tire testimony, and have quoted very voluminously from testimony offered on the trial of the cause. We believe it will be safer for us to follow the established rule of our courts and refuse to pass on the other questions presented on this appeal, for the reason that, if the trial court has no jurisdiction of the parties, then its judgment is not valid, and, until that issue has been determined, no other issue should be passed on by the courts.
The question of venue can be tried at the same time as the main case. If, however, at the close of the testimony it should be determined by the trial court, or if the question is submitted to the jury, and the jury should determine that the plea of privilege should be sustained, then all other questions should be withdrawn and the cause transferred to *531tlie proper county. Harris Millinery Co. v. Bryan, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 477, 125 S. W. 999.
The respective motions filed by appellee and appellant are overruled.