Court Opinion

ID: 9834238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:26:08.553107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:13.158021
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
This court did not hold that appellant could not have dismissed John Ihnken from the suit, but held that he alone could do it. He did not choose to exercise that privilege, and the court could not do so.
Appellant seems to disregard the fact that he filed an amended petition, in which he made John Ihnken a party. We have not held, as appellant seems to suppose, that a defendant in a case could bring a party in another county into a suit, and thereby change the venue, but simply held that when a plaintiff files an amended petition, joining two parties whose residence he alleges is in another county, and one of them files a plea of privilege, and it is sustained, the case should be transferred to the proper county.
No testimony was heard on the application of Louisa 0. Ihnken to change the venue, and the court doubtless concluded, after hearing the evidence on John Ihnken’s application, that he had erred in overruling the application for change of'venue, filed by Louisa C. Ihnken, and granted a change of venue as to both. It was averred in the application of John Ihnken that Louisa 0. Ihnken was a bona fide resident of Medina county, as alleged in appellant’s petition.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.