Cactus Petroleum Co. v. Summers

Decision Date15 December 1958
Docket NumberNo. 6821,6821
Citation319 S.W.2d 729
PartiesCACTUS PETROLEUM COMPANY, Appellant, v. Johnny SUMMERS et al., Appellees.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Searls, and Leroy Jeffers, Houston, for appellant.

Samuel H. Wilds, Dumas, for appellees.

NORTHCUTT, Justice.

This is a question of venue. We adopt the appellant's statement of the nature of the suit as follows: 'Appellees as former employees of appellant sued for overtime compensation at the rate of time and one-half for all hours worked by them in excess of forty (40) hours per week in the employment of the appellant under the provisions of the Wage and Hour Law. They further allege that they were employed by the appellant at a wage of 20% of the difference between the buying price and the selling price of the crude oil which they transported as drivers of appellant's trucks and that they were paid a lesser amount, i. e., 20% of the trucking charge or truck earnings. Appellant duly filed its Plea of Privilege to be sued in Harris County, the county of its residence, which appellees controverted by invoking Subdivision 23 of Article 1995, Vernon's Annotated Texas Statutes, contending that their causes of action or a part thereof arose in the county of suit.

'Appellee E. W. Harder intervened, alleging the same causes of action, to which appellant duly filed its Plea of Privilege, which was again controverted by invoking Subdivision 23 of Article 1995. It was stipulated that the Plea of Privilege to the intervention could be deemed submitted to the trial court under the same testimony heard by the court on the hearing of the Plea of Privilege of the defendant to the Petition of the original Plaintiffs.

'After hearing, the trial court overruled appellant's Pleas of Privilege, to which action the appellant duly excepted and gave notice of appeal to this Court. The appeal has been duly perfected.'

We make no reference to the contention of the parties as to the Wage and Hour Law, and neither do we express an opinion on such matter, since we do not consider that would have any bearing, under this record, with our disposition of this case as to venue. The sole question for us to determine is whether the appellees pleaded and offered sufficient evidence to sustain the holding of the trial court in overruling appellant's plea of privilege. Appellees did plead and prove that they were hired or contracted with in Dumas, Moore County, Texas, and testified they were to receive 20 per cent of the difference between the buying price and the selling price of the crude oil which they transported as drivers of appellant's trucks and that they were paid a lesser amount. The appellees sought to recover the amounts due to each of them, which they contended was the difference in the amount they were paid and what they were entitled to under their contract with appellant.

Appellees sought to hold venue in Moore County, Texas by virtue of Section 23 of Article 1995 of Texas Civil Statutes. This section provides that a suit against a private corporation may be brought in the County in which the cause of action or part thereof arose. It is undisputed that the appellees were hired or contracted with in Dumas, Moore County, Texas, and were hired by Mr. Florence, the Supervisor who had an office in Dumas at the time. There is no question raised as to Mr. Florence being the representative of appellant and neither is there any question as to appellees being contracted with in Moore County. As to that part of appellees' claims that they were to receive 20 per cent of the difference in the buying price and the selling price, it is the contention of appellant that the 20 per cent was based upon the profit made between the buying price and the selling price. In other words, appellant contended its investment and expenses should be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Dina Pak Corp. v. May Aluminum, Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 1967
    ...225 S.W.2d 1011, n.w.h.; First Trust Company v. Good Land Lumber Company, Tex.Civ.App., 297 S.W.2d 312, n.w.h.; Cactus Petroleum Company v. Summers, Tex.Civ.App., 319 S.W.2d 729, writ dism. SUBDIVISION 29a, Art. 1995 This exception to the general rule that a defendant is entitled to be sued......
  • Delhi Gas Pipeline Corp. v. Allgood
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 22, 1973
    ...here involved. El Laredo, Inc. v. Orr, 321 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.Civ.App., Ft. Worth, 1959, n.w.h.); Cactus Petroleum Company v. Summers, 319 S.W.2d 729 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo, 1958, writ dism.); Ohio Oil Co. v. Varner, 150 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas, 1941, n.w.h.); Early-Foster Co. v. A. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT