Court Opinion

ID: 9827626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:42:48.455358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:33.886489
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing and to Certify.
On motions for rehearing and to certify, appellant contends that we erred in holding that it had waived its plea of privilege by later filing an answer setting up matters triable in Travis county, and that in so holding this court is in conflict with several cases cited. We did not hold that appellant waived its plea cif privilege by filing an amended answer, which was filed subject to the action of the court on the plea of privilege. We held that the suit of appellant in the federal court and its answers both before and after amendment showed that the relief sought thereby was to determine a matter over which article 6059 conferred exclusive venue and jurisdiction in the district court of Travis county, Tex.
Nor do the cases cited deal with the character of litigation here involved. Appellant’s suit in the federal court was one to declare the rate order confiscatory upon the sole ground that the rate fixed would not afford a reasonable return on the fair value of its property used in the public service, and that the rate order was therefore unjust and unreasonable. The same ground was alleged in the state court by appellant as rendering the rate order unjust and unreasonable. The state’s suit was to determine whether the rate order was legal and just and reasonable, not because the state or commission thought it so, but in order that such issues be first tried in the state courts. The state’s suit was therefore one authorized by the provisions of U.S.C.A. title 28, § 380, section 266 of the Judicial Code of the United States. Any court -of competent jurisdiction' could try such suit, and article 6059 confers exclusive venue and jurisdiction in the district court of Travis county, Tex., to determine the reasonableness or justness of a gas rate; and a rate order which is alleged to be confiscatory, as the one in suit was alleged to be by appellant both in the federal and state court, is necessarily unjust and unreasonable, and only the district court of Travis county, Tex., has venue and jurisdiction to determine these matters, under the provisions of article .6059.
Both motions will be overruled.
Overruled.