Caprito v. Weaver

• Decision Date: 07 December 1934
• Docket Number: No. 1350.,1350.
• Citation: 77 S.W.2d 595
• Parties: CAPRITO v. WEAVER et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

77 S.W.2d 595

CAPRITO v.WEAVER et al.

No. 1350.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

December 7, 1934.

Appeal from District Court, Howard County; Chas. L. Klapproth, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Mary Weaver and others against S. Caprito.From a judgment overruling his plea of privilege, defendant appeals.

Reversed, and cause transferred.

Morrison & Morrison and Sullivan & Sullivan, all of Big Spring, and Lyndsay D. Hawkins, of Breckenridge, for appellant.

Thomas & McDonald, of Big Spring, for appellees.

LESLIE, Justice.

The opinion of this court on a former appeal of this case is to be found in 63 S.W.(2d) 1043, 1044.The facts and circumstances involved are substantially the same, and will not be repeated.

This appeal is from the judgment of the trial court overruling Caprito's plea of privilege to be sued in Stephens county, the county of his residence.A controverting affidavit was duly filed, and trial was had before the court and jury.At the conclusion of the testimony, the court submitted the following issue: "Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the residence of the defendant, Jack Trantham, from May 30, 1932, to the present time, has been in Howard County, Texas?"

The jury answered this question in the affirmative, and the court rendered judgment on that verdict.

The plaintiffs sued S. Caprito and Jack Trantham in the district court of Howard county for damages alleged to have resulted from injuries inflicted through the negligence of Trantham, who was alleged to be at the time of the injuries the agent of Caprito and acting within the scope of his employment, etc.Venue as to Caprito is sought to be maintained in Howard county under exception 4 of the general venue statute, article 1995, R. S. 1925, and, for the purposes of venue, that county is alleged to be the residence of Trantham.

By various assignments and propositions, the appellant contends that the finding of the jury in response to the sole issue submitted does not establish in Howard county the venue of this suit as against Caprito.We sustain this contention.Although the statute seems to say that the fact of residence of one of the defendants in the county of the suit is sufficient to fix venue as to nonresident defendants, yet by judicial construction the statute has been construed to require that the plaintiff plead and prove very much more in order to draw a nonresident defendant from the county of his residence and force him to meet the issues of the lawsuit in a county other than that of his residence.In other words, the rule is well established by the authorities that, to maintain venue in the county of suit against a nonresident defendant under exception 4 of the general venue statute, the plaintiff has the burden of alleging and proving the bona fide cause of action as against the resident defendant.A failure to discharge this burden at once concludes the inquiry, and the defendant is entitled to the change of venue.Richardson v. D. S. Cage Co., 113 Tex. 152, 252 S. W. 747;Oakland Motor Car Co. v. Jones(Tex. Civ. App.)29 S.W.(2d) 861;Bryant v. Spear(Tex. Civ. App.)68 S.W.(2d) 300;Henderson Grain Co. v. Russ, 122 Tex. 620, 64 S.W.(2d) 347;Diversion Lake Club v. Self(Tex. Civ. App.)71 S.W.(2d) 553;Graves v. Buzbee(Tex. Civ. App.)45 S.W. (2d) 392;Thompson v. Reed(Tex. Civ. App.)61 S.W.(2d) 557.

The burden placed upon the plaintiff on this venue issue is in no way met by merely alleging and...