Court Opinion

ID: 9827275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:21:45.829014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:28.077207
License: Public Domain

On Motion of Appellant for a Rehearing and to Certify.
It is insisted that the conclusion reached by us that appellant’s plea of privilege was insufficient because it did not appear therefrom that he was not a resident of Cherokee county at the time he filed same is in conflict with the decision of the gan Antonio Court of Civil Appeals in Poole v. Oil Ass’n, 209 S. W. 706, and the decision of the Eastland Court of Civil Appeals in Slaughter v. Slaughter, 284 S. W. 350. Both those cases were considered at the time this one was decided. We thought the Poole Case was distinguishable from this one in its facts and in that the statute (article 1903, R. S. 1911) applicable in that ease was materially different from the statute (article 2007, R. S. 1925) applicable in this one. The glaughter Case was like this one, but in deciding it the court followed the Poole Case without noting the difference in the statutes.
The motions are overruled. See International & G. N. R. Co. v. Pleasants, 116 Tex. 568, 296 S. W. 282.