American Quarter Horse Ass'n v. Rose, 17658

• Decision Date: 20 June 1975
• Docket Number: No. 17658,17658
• Citation: 525 S.W.2d 227
• Parties: AMERICAN QUARTER HORSE ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. Matlock ROSE, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 227

525 S.W.2d 227

AMERICAN QUARTER HORSE ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. Matlock ROSE, Appellee.

No. 17658.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas,

Fort Worth.

June 20, 1975.

Pope, Hardwicke, Christie & Montgomery, Fort Worth, Underwood, Wilson, Sutton, Berry, Stein & Johnson and R. A. Wilson, Amarillo, for appellant.

Murad & Steimel, Fort Worth, Webb, Stokes & Sparks and Tom Webb, San Angelo, for appellee.

OPINION

MASSEY, Chief Justice.

This is a case in which Matlock Rose, plaintiff, brought suit for damages against American Quarter Horse Association (hereinafter termed AQHA) in Tarrant County, Texas. AQHA filed its plea of privilege to have the suit transferred to Potter County as its place of residence. Following trial the plea of privilege was overruled and AQHA appealed.

We reverse and order transfer of the cause.

Involved is Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.St. Art. 1995, 'Venue, general rule', providing that no person who is an inhabitant of this State shall be sued out of the county in which he has his domicile, with certain exceptions, among which are the provisions of Section or Subsection 23, 'Corporations and associations'. Thereby is provided that suit against a private association, etc., may be brought in the county in which arose the cause of action or a part thereof. It is the contention of Matlock Rose that a part of his total cause of action against AQHA arose in Tarrant County where he brought his suit. This contention was sustained by the trial court in overruling the plea of privilege.

In the instant case for right to retain venue in the county of suit is dependent upon Mr. Rose's discharge of the burden of a plaintiff to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he not only has a cause of action against the defendant, but that a part of the transaction creating his right occurred in the county of suit. McDonald, Texas Civil Practice, Sec. 4.30.1, 'Art. 1995(23) and (27) . Suits against Corporations and Associations. . . . § 4.30.2.--(I) Where Cause of Action or Part Thereof Accrued.'

In essence, the suit against AQHA is based upon its wrongful breach of contract by unjustified suspension of Matlock Rose from membership in the association with injury to Rose's property rights a consequence.

In America today the Quarter-Horse is probably the most popular type of horse. Individuals and corporations are formed for the purpose of breeding, showing, selling, etc., animals 'admitted to registry' by the AQHA. Persons organizing shows and rodeos find it necessary to restrict participation to animals on the register of AQHA and to restrict entitlement to show or judge animals shown by others at these shows and rodeos to individuals who have been admitted to membership and are in good standing as a member of AQHA. This is substantially because of the system of giving and publicizing the award of 'points' to the horses registered on the books of AQHA. These points accrue to an individual horse when it is shown by and judged by members of AQHA at 'AQHA approved shows' etc. AQHA refuses to award 'points' to any horse not so registered, not shown by, not judged by a member in good standing, and not accrued pursuant to participation at a show or other exhibition which is not 'AQHA approved'. Of course the interests of AQHA and its members in good standing are aided by the system. Very many members who are breeders, trainers or exhibitors gain through enhancement of the value of animals bought or sold because of the number of 'points' won by them, or by contracts to train horses for others because an animal or animals trained by them have been awarded 'points'. There are many other possible examples, of which these are only a few. A recognized skilled or successful breeder or trainer of AQHA registered horses can make money because he is such, and he cannot become so recognized unless he is a member of AQHA. Such a person was Matlock Rose.

By reason of his suspension from membership in AQHA Mr. Rose could neither show nor judge any AQHA registered horse at any 'AQHA approved show,' and the evidence in the record before us showed that he did fail to earn money because of his suspension as a member by AQHA.

The occurrence giving rise to Rose's suspension took place September 28, 1973, at an 'AQHA recognized' horse show at Oklahoma City. There Mr. Rose's horse, Charlie Polite, was entered and shown . Charlie Polite would have won a sizable number of points because he was named Grand Champion Stud in the event at which he was shown, except for the fact that the urine test given him immediately thereafter was a 'positive butazolidine test', i.e., there was indicated presence of the drug Butazolidin in his system as of the time he had been shown. Because of the results of the test the 'points' awardable were withheld. Culmination of the affair was that, pursuant to action taken at a meeting held for the purpose by officials of AQHA at Amarillo, Potter County, Texas, on November 27, 1973, Mr. Rose was suspended from membership in the association for the period of six (6) months, beginning as of date of such November hearing, 'for violation of Rule 299 of the 1973 AQHA Handbook'.

It was on September 26, 1973, two days before the sample of urine was taken from Charlie Polite at Oklahoma City, that a veterinarian had administered to Charlie Polite the drug Butazolidin. The veterinarian, by reason of instruction from Matlock Rose that he should do whatever he might deem necessary, decided that the Butazolidin should be administered. Charlie Polite was 'favoring' a hoof, apparently because of lameness resulting from having been shod rather close. Apparently the pain was relieved by the drug. Shortly after it was administered there was no lameness either before, during, or after the conduct of the show at Oklahoma City. Evidence in the record is to the effect that it would be unusual, though not impossible, for the presence of evidence of Butazolidin to have remained in the horse's system as of the time he was shown on September 28th. In this instance it did. Matlock Rose did know that the drug had been administered before the show was held, though he did not learn that the veterinarian had given such a 'shot' to Charlie Polite on the 26th until after the veterinarian had administered it.

The Handbook heretofore mentioned is in substance a part of the By-Laws of the membership of AQHA. As between Matlock Rose and AQHA it constitutes part of the contract of each with the other. Rule 299, as a part thereof is the 'Show and Contest Rule'. Therein are material provisions to the effect that (a) either before or during an approved event no medication shall be caused to be administered to a horse which is of such character as could affect its performance; (b) that upon taking a specimen for testing from a horse exhibited or presented for exhibition with a laboratory report showing the presence of a forbidden drug or medication such shall be prima facie evidence that it had been administered; and (c) that the exhibitor, the individual signing the entry blank, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, is to be deemed responsible for the condition of the horse and to know all the rules and regulations of the Association.

Rule 35 of the Handbook on 'Disciplinary Procedure' provides that any member of AQHA may be suspended whenever it is established that a member has Knowingly and willfully violated any pertinent rule. Further relevant portion thereof (as part of the parties' contract)...