Court Opinion

ID: 9828384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:20:01.548433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:47.695464
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing and to Certify.
The appellant bank has filed a motion for rehearing and requested that the opinion and order of this court reversing the judgment be so modified as to transfer the case to the county court of Hockley county.
It has also filed a motion to certify- in the event the motion for rehearing is overruled.
After a careful review of the record, we are convinced that we have properly disposed of the case.
The appellant insists that in reversing the judgment we are in conflict with the holding in Gorbett v. Berryman & Watters (Tex. Civ. App.) 7 S.W.(2d) 100. In that case the plea of privilege was filed which did not show sufficiently that the defendant was not a resident of Cherokee County at the time the suit was filed. A controverting affidavit was also filed. No exceptions were urged to the insufficiency of the plea. The trial court overruled the plea of privilege and this judgment was affirmed. Based upon this holding, the bank insists that we should modify the judgment in this case. The two cases do not conflict in any particular. In the Gorbett Case, there was no exception to the insufficiency of the plea. If such exception had been made and sustained and the defendant had refused to amend, then, of course, it would have been the duty of the appellate court to affirm the judgment or, if exceptions to the plea had been filed and overruled and, relying upon the correctness of the court’s ruling, the defendant did not amend and upon appeal it was held that the court erred in overruling the plea, then the practice is to remand the case in order that the defendant may have the right to amend his pleading. This is the course we have pursued in this case, and we are sustained by innumerable authorities. In Terrell v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 59 S.W.(2d) 442, 443 (writ of error refused), this court said: “When the [trial] court erroneously overrules a general demurrer to an answer instead of sustaining it and defendant, relying upon the court’s ruling as to the sufficiency of his answer, is misled to his prejudice, he is entitled to have the case reversed in order that he may amend. Colonial Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Meyer (Tex. Civ. App.) 48 S.W.(2d) 729, and authorities cited.” See, also, Austin v. Fields (Tex. Civ. App.) 300 S. W. 247; Smith v. Patton (Tex. Com. App.) 241 S. W. 109; 3 Tex. Jur. § 858.
Both motions are overruled.