Court Opinion

ID: 9833668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:56:13.335173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:05.760803
License: Public Domain

On Hotion for Rehearing.
By its motion for rehearing the appellee attacks our holding to the effect that the plea of privilege, being in strict compliance with the requirements of It. S. art. 2007, was sufficient, and that the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to it. Appellee bases its criticism of our holding upon, the case of Barnum et al. v. Lancaster Hardware Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 40 S.W.(2d) 1103, which, it must be conceded, is directly in conflict with our holding in this case.
In the Barnum Case, Jones, Chief Justice, bases his holding upon Tates et al. v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 3 S.W.(2d) 114, and Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Kincaid (Tex. Civ. App.) 19 S.W.(2d) 144, and authorities therein cited, and holds that the allegation provided by the statute that “no exception to exclusive venue the county of one’s residence provided by law exists” is simply a legal conclusion. in
We are not able to agree with the holding in the Barnum Case, because the weight of authority, as evidenced by the decisions of other Courts of Civil Appeals, as well as of the Supreme Court and of the Dallas court itself, is to the contrary.
In the case of Bussell Grader Manufacturing Co. v. McMillin (Tex. Civ. App.) 271 S. W. 124, 125, Judge Looney of the Dallas court, in passing upon this same question, said: “It has been so often held by the courts of this state, as to be axiomatic, that the filing of a plea of privilege in compliance with the statute establishes prima facie the right to have the venue of the case changed, and, unless the plea of privilege is contested,” etc.
In the case of Schumacher Co. v. Dolive, 112 Tex. 564, 250 S. W. 673, the Supreme. Court, in answering a certified question in the case where the statement recites that “Dolive filed Iris pica of privilege in manner and form as provided by the statute,” said that the trial court entered a proper judgment in sustaining the plea of privilege and ordering the case transferred.
We are further sustained in our holding by the following cases: Foresyth v. Pike & Kramer (Tex. Civ. App.) 46 S.W.(2d) 733; Johnson v. First National Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 42 S.W.(2d) 870; First National Bank of Rhome v. Cage (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S.W.(2d) 500, 501: Oakland Motor Car Co. v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S.W.(2d) 861, 865; Green v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 271 S. W. 394; Murphy v. Dabney (Tex. Civ. App.) 208 S. W. 981 : Robert Nicholson Seed Co. v. Reese (Tex. Civ. App.) 39 S.W.(2d) 950; Johnson v. Dallas Cooperage & Woodenware Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 34 S.W.(2d) 845.
The motion for rehearing and to certify is overruled.