Court Opinion

ID: 9681521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:51:59.574243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:34.309287
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Smith,
dissenting.
By heretofore joining in the dissenting opinion, I have made known my belief that a mandatory continuance should have been granted in this case under the provisions of Article 2168a, Vernon’s Annotated Texas Civil Statutes.
I am writing on motion for rehearing because, in my opinion, this case presents other problems which are much more important and far-reaching than the question of whether a continuance should have been granted; and, I respectfully submit, the decisions of the majority of the Court with respect to such problems are erroneous.
As is stated in the majority opinion, the old bill in equity to perpetuate testimony did not lie when the matter about which the witness was to be examined could be made the subject of an immediate law suit. As is also stated in the majority opinion, the procedure for perpetuating testimony which is provided by Rule 187, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, is a substitute for the old bill in equity. Consequently, Relator has argued that, as a matter of precedent and history, this Court should hold that in order to perpetuate testimony under Rule 187 the moving party must follow the same procedure required under the old bill in equity and show some good cause why the matter to which the testimony relates cannot be made the subject of an immediate suit. The Supreme Court of Vermont so held with *470respect to its perpetuation statute in Petition of Central Vermont Public Service Corporation, 115 Vt. 204, 55 Atl. (2d) 201, but the majority of this Court has said “We will not engraft such a condition” upon the Texas perpetuation rule.
I am not persuaded by Relator’s argument, or by the logic of the Vermont Court, that because, as a matter of history, such a condition attached to the old bill in equity, it should also attach to Rule 187. I am, however, thoroughly convinced that, not as a matter of history, but as a matter of equity and justice, this Court should hold that a prospective litigant who attempts to avail himself of the procedure provided by Rule 187 should be required to show some good reason why he cannot institute suit immediately.
Under ordinary deposition procedure, the suit has been filed, the issues have been joined in the pleadings, and the defendant’s attorney therefore knows the precise issues about which the witness should be examined. Absent good cause for different procedure, a defendant’s attorney is entitled to examine witnesses under such conditions. However, under Rule 187 as it has been interpreted in the majority opinion, a person representing himself as a prospective litigant can obtain a commission for the taking of depositions upon the basis of extremely vague statements about the general nature of the lawsuit which he purports he intends to institute, and an attorney for the prospective defendant is forced to shoot in the dark at a moving target in examining the witness, without any definite knowledge of the nature of the prospective suit, and without anything more than inferences concerning the issues which will be raised therein. In my opinion, a prospective litigant who desires to examine a witness under such conditions should, at the very least, be required to make a clear showing of good and sufficient reasons why he cannot immediately institute suit and utilize ordinary deposition procedure. The holding to the contrary by the majority of this Court is, I believe, the most basic and fundamental error in the majority opinion.
However, even if we assume that this holding in the majority opinion is correct, under what conditions should the Court permit the testimony of a witness to be perpetuated — should it permit perpetuation upon the basis of vague, general statements concerning the nature of the purported prospective lawsuit, or should it require that the nature of such suit be pinpointed in the greatest possible detail? Unless the attorney for the prospective defendant is to be placed at an extremely gross disad*471vantage, the Court should select the latter alternative, and in Guthrie v. Speck, Texas Civ. App., 53 S.W. 2d 318, the Austin Court of Civil Appeals so held. Fairness and justice most certainly require that an attorney for a prospective defendant who is subjected to taking a deposition prior to the filing of a lawsuit should be protected in some measure by a requirement that his opponent give him the most detailed possible information concerning the nature of the proposed suit and of the issues therein. However, the majority of this Court has held that the procedure provided by Rule 187 can be utilized, first, without showing any reason why suit cannot immediately be instituted, and, secondly, upon the basis of an indefinite statement to the effect that the anticipated suit “ ‘will, if instituted, grow out of campaign expenditures made by the said Ben Ramsey in seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of Lieutenant Governor of the State of Texas for the period commencing April 1, 1954, and terminating on August 1, 1954, and petitioner anticipates the filing of a suit growing out of unreported campaign expenditures as are required to be reported under the laws of the State of Texas and in particular under those portions of the laws of the State of Texas commonly known as, and referred to as, the Texas Election Code’.”
Article 14.03 of the Election Code sets forth ten categories of campaign expenditures that can legally be made by a candidate, his campaign manager, or assistant campaign managers. Within these categories the Article lists approximately twenty-one permissible purposes for which expenditures can be made.
Article 14.04 of the Code provides that it is unlawful for any person other than the candidate, his campaign manager, or his assistant campaign managers to make campaign expenditures except for two limited purposes.
Under Article 14.05, a defeated candidate can sue to recover damages from anyone who violates either Article 14.03 or Article 14.04.
When the Respondent C. T. Johnson filed the above-quoted statement concerning his anticipated suit, what did he tell the Relator? Did he tell the Relator whether his suit is to be against the Relator personally under Article 14.03? He did not. Did he tell Relator whether the suit is to be against his campaign manager or against any one or more of his assistant campaign managers? He did not. Did he tell Relator whether the suit is to be against some third party under Article 14.04? He did not. *472Did he tell Relator what the alleged expenditures are or why they did not fall under one of the approximately twenty-one purposes enumerated in Article 14.03, or under one of the two purposes set forth in Article 14.04? He did not.
As a result, if this Court permits a proceeding under Rule 187 to perpetuate the testimony of Vernon T. Sanford in connection with a prospective suit” growing out of unreported campaign expenditures.” Relator’s attorneys literally will have to “cover the waterfront,” for they will have to examine the witness in an attempt to elicit information concerning (1) a possible suit against Relator himself under Article 14.03; (2) a possible suit against his campaign manager under Article 14.03; (3) a possible suit against any one or more of his assistant campaign managers; and (4) a possible suit against third parties who might have made expenditures on his behalf and whose expenditures might have been entirely unknown to Relator.
Nor is this all. Under Article 14.08 of the Election Code, still another type of suit can be brought by a defeated candidate against a candidate who has not reported his campaign expenditures, and, in questioning Mr. Sanford, Relator’s counsel will also have in mind the possibility of a suit under that Article.
In summary, the statement filed by the Respondent C. T. Johnson fails to apprise Relator whether his anticipated suit will be filed under Article 14.03, under Article 14.04, or under Article 14.08. In addition, it fails to inform Relator whether he is the prospective defendant, whether the prospective defendant is his campaign manager or one or more of his assistant campaign managers, or whether it is some one or more of the thousands of persons who may have made campaign expenditures on his behalf. I do not think that a prospective litigant should be forced to respond to a request to perpetuate testimony or to examine witnesses under such conditions.
If a prospective litigant can be forced to take a deposition under such conditions, the door is wide open to the rankest of “fishing” expeditions. In this connection, I might add that I construe the decision in Guthrie v. Speck, supra, with which I fully concur, as being to the effect that when, as in this case, the prospective defendant files a sworn statement that the real purpose of a proceeding under Rule 187 is to conduct a fishing expedition, the burden of establishing the contrary is upon the person who is seeking to proceed under the Rule.
*473Finally, there is the matter of venue. Relator resides in San Augustine County, but the proceeding under Rule 187 has been instituted in Travis County. As is stated above, Articles 14.03, 14.04 and 14.08 of the Election Code create various causes of action in favor of defeated candidates, but they nowhere specify that venue with respect to such causes should be in Travis County or in any other county. The traditional policy of this State, as embodied in Article 1995, R. C. S., is that none of its inhabitants shall be subject to suit outside the county of his domicile except as specifically provided by statute. No such exception exists with respect to actions under Rule 187. If the Respondent C. T. Johnson can proceed under Rule 187 in Travis County, he can, with equal reason, proceed against Relator in Dallam County, in El Paso County, in Orange County, in Bowie County, or in any other county from one corner to the other in this State. In the absence of a statute expressly authorizing suit by a defeated candidate in some county other than the residence of the successful candidate, I do not think this Court should render a decision by which a successful candidate can be harassed by being subjected to the expense and inconvenience of taking depositions of witnesses in any of the 254 counties of this State. The majority opinion has created an ambulatory cause of action cognizable in any court of the State.
In announcing these views on the matter of venue, I am not perturbed by the fact that no action has been had on the plea of privilege in this case. Rule 187 requires that proceedings thereunder be accompanied by a written statement to the effect that the proceedings are sought in a court in which the anticipated suit could be filed. In this case the Respondent C. T. Johnson sought to comply with this requirement by alleging only the legal conclusion that his anticipated suit could be filed in the 53rd District Court of Travis County. I construe this provision of Rule 187 as requiring, not a rote recital of a legal conclusion, but rather allegations of fact sufficient to demonstrate that the suit could, both as a matter of jurisdiction and as a matter of venue, be instituted in the court in which it is sought to proceed under Rule 187. No such facts are alleged in this case. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the matter of venue is before us, not in connection with the plea of privilege filed by Relator — which has not been acted upon by the trial court — but upon the basis of the motion to quash which he filed wherein he averred that the Respondent C. T. Johnson had alleged no facts sufficient to entitle him to maintain any anticipated suit against Relator outside of San Augustine County.
*474Hence, for the reasons stated herein, as well as for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Griffin, I am of the opinion that the writs of mandamus and prohibition sought by Relator should be granted.
Opinion delivered June 15, 1955.
Rehearing overruled June 15, 1955.