Burton v. Rogers
| Decision Date | 31 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. B--4002,B--4002 |
| Citation | 504 S.W.2d 404 |
| Parties | Dr. Jack BURTON et al., Petitioners, v. Dr. N. Jay ROGERS, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., Jack Sparks and Robert L. Oliver, Asst. Attys., Gen., Austin, for petitioners.
Mehaffy, Weber, Keith & Gonsoulin, Robert Q. Keith, C. M. Bradford, Beaumont, for respondent.
This is a venue case.
The Texas Optometry Board was created under the provisions of Art. 4552, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Vernon's Ann., 1 the Texas Optometry Act. The Board is composed of six members, all of whom are required to be licensed optometrists. One of these Board members is Dr. N. Jay Rogers, a resident of Jefferson County, the sole plaintiff in this case. The other five members of the Board, the parties named as defendants in this case, are Dr. Jack Burton of Cleburne, Dr. Jacob M. Cohen of Houston, Dr. John B. Bowen of Sweetwater, Dr. Nelson F. Waldman of Houston, and Dr. Salvador S. Mora of Laredo.
In January of 1972 a majority of the Optometry Board, with the exception of Dr. Rogers, voted for and caused to be issued an interpretative ruling of the Texas Optometry Act, Art. 4552, § 5.09. The interpretative ruling related to certain advertising which allegedly referred to the price of optical service and optical ware. The Board thereafter caused letters, in the name of the Optometry Board, to be sent to all Texas optometrists advising them of the issuance of such ruling.
It was at this juncture that the instant suit was filed by Dr. Rogers in Jefferson County, the county of his residence. As indicated, none of the five defendants was a resident of such county; they were rather residents of different and diverse counties of this state.
This suit had two essential purposes: (1) to obtain a declaratory judgment that the interpretative ruling was void; and (2) to secure a temporary, and thereafter a permanent, injunction restraining the Board from enforcing its proclamation. The five defendants filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Travis County, asserting that they were members of the Texas Optometry Board and acting within the course and scope of their official duties at all pertinent times. Dr. Rogers filed a controverting plea alleging a trespass within Subdivision 9 of Art. 1995. The trial court overruled the defendants' plea of privilege and the court of civil appeals affirmed. 492 S.W.2d 695. We reverse.
The court of civil appeals' opinion was unanimous. Our jurisdiction therefore rests on the conflict section of Art. 1728. See John Farrell Lumber Company v. Wood, 400 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.1966); Arts. 1728, 1821. The Board cites six cases in its Statement of Jurisdiction, five of which are not sufficiently in conflict to confer jurisdiction. Department of Pub. Safety v. Great S. W. Warehouses, 352 S.W.2d 493 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1961, writ ref'd n.r.e.); W. D. Haden Company v. Dodgen, 158 Tex. 74, 308 S.W.2d 838 (1958), and Herring v. Houston Nat. Exch. Bank, 113 Tex. 264, 253 S.W. 813 (1923), do not involve venue. Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Kelly, 261 S.W.2d 480 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1953, no writ), and City of Mineral Wells v. McDonald, 141 Tex. 113, 170 S.W.2d 466 (1943), do not contain the same factual allegations as Dr. Rogers asserted in his controverting plea.
The case that does confer conflict jurisdiction on this court is Rainbo Baking Company of San Antonio v. Aiken, 362 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1962, no writ). In both Rainbo and the instant case the plaintiffs filed suit against State Officials, as individuals, in counties other than Travis County. The Officials in both cases filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Travis County. The residence for venue purposes of a State Official is Travis County. Gulf Coast Business Forms, Inc. v. Texas Employment Commission, 498 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.1973); Fitts v. Calvert, 374 S.W.2d 274 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1963, writ dism'd), and Sims v. White,292 S.W.2d 648 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1956, no writ).
The conflict between Rainbo and the instant case rests in each court's resolution of the query: Is this suit against individuals or against the State? In Rainbo the court stated:
Despite allegations of illegal conduct in Rainbo, the court of civil appeals left the issue for resolution at the trial on the merits and held that the suit, for venue purposes, was against the State. On the other hand, in the instant case the court of civil appeals made extensive affirmative rulings of Ultra vires conduct at the venue stage, thus finding the suit to be against individuals.
This court not only cites Rainbo for purposes of jurisdiction but also adopts the bifurcated approach used therein. A suit against State Officials acting under the guise of State authority is, for purposes of venue, a suit against the State. Whether these acts are Ultra vires is an issue better resolved at the trial on the merits. Texas courts have consistently followed a policy of resolving no more at the venue stage than necessary. 'The sole issue in the plea of privilege hearing is that of venue; not liability or the merits of the case.' Dealers National Insurance Company v. Rose, 396 S.W.2d 535 (Tex.Civ.App. --waco 1965, no writ). see Also geneRal motoRs accePtance Corporation v. Howard, 487 S.W.2d 708 (Tex.1972); Stockyards Nat. Bank v. Maples, 127 Tex. 633, 95 S.W.2d 1300 (1936), and Farmers Seed & Gin Co. v. Brooks, 125 Tex. 234, 81 S.W.2d 675 (1935).
As in Rainbo, the plaintiff in the instant suit seeks to enjoin alleged illegal conduct. The provisions of Art. 4656, placing the venue in an injunction suit in the county of defendant's residence, are mandatory. Sims v. White, Supra. Accordingly, the trial court below should have sustained the plaintiff's plea of privilege and transferred the case to Travis County.
Judgment of the court of civil appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court with instructions to sustain the plea of privilege and to transfer the cause to Travis County.
DANIEL, J., not sitting.
Under precedent the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of this case by reason of Subdivision 2 of Art. 1728, V.A.T.S.
First, we have the rule that places venue in Travis County if it is essentially a suit against the State. The holding in Rainbo Baking Co. of San Antonio v. Aiken, 362 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Civ.App.1962, no writ) was that the suit was against the State; that court did not take a bifurcated approach and leave the question to a trial on the merits. The opinion clearly states:
This is a venue suit. The first question presented is whether this is essentially a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M. H. Gordon & Son, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission
...v. Stapleton, 53 F.Supp. 336, 340 (D.Colo.1943); Burton v. Rogers, 492 S.W.2d 695, 700--701 (Tex.Civ.App.), rev'd on other grounds, 504 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.1973). In construing a Federal statute which levied a tax on soft drink manufacturers of ten per cent of the price at which the beverages w......
-
Texas Optometry Bd. v. Lee Vision Center, Inc.
...upon the interpretation given Sec. 5.09(a) in Burton v. Rogers, 492 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1973) rev'd on other grounds 504 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.1974) to support their argument that optometrists under Sec. 5.09(a) are not prohibited from advertising price indirectly by statements suc......
-
Bowles v. Wade
...1993, no writ); Thomas v. Collins, 853 S.W.2d 53, 55 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied); see also Burton v. Rogers, 504 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex.1973). County officers, such as sheriffs, are elected by and accountable to the people. Rosales v. Brazoria County, 764 S.W.2d 342, 344 (Tex......
-
Scott v. Presidio I.S.D.
...for purposes of venue, the Commissioner—a statewide official—resides in Travis County, the seat of state government. See Burton v. Rogers, 504 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex.1973); Gulf Coast Bus. Forms, Inc. v. Texas Employment Comm'n, 498 S.W.2d 154, 154 (Tex. 1973) (per curiam). In addition, the T......