Dixie Motor Coach Corporation v. Watson, 14042.
| Decision Date | 08 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 14042.,14042. |
| Citation | 138 S.W.2d 314 |
| Parties | DIXIE MOTOR COACH CORPORATION v. WATSON. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; Allan D. Montgomery, Judge.
Action by Geneva Watson, joined by her husband "pro forma," against the Dixie Motor Coach Corporation for personal injuries allegedly sustained by Geneva Watson while a passenger on one of defendant's busses. From a judgment overruling defendant's plea of privilege to be sued in another county, defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Barnes & McElroy, of Terrell, for appellant.
Philip S. Kouri, of Wichita Falls, for appellee.
Appellee, Geneva Watson, who was and is married to Wylie Watson, brought suit against appellant for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her while a passenger on one of appellant's motor buses, and her husband joins in the suit "pro forma". The prayer is that plaintiff have judgment for her damages.
The suit having been brought in the District Court of Wichita County, the defendant filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Dallas County.
Defendant below and appellant here was sued by the name "Dixie Motor Coach Corporation" and was sued as a corporation.
The plea of privilege recites that "Dixie Motor Coach Corporation, defendant in the above entitled and numbered cause", comes, etc.; the plea of privilege refers to the defendant as "it", and the plea is signed "Dixie Motor Coach Corp. by A. W. Riter, Defendant", and it is sworn to by A. W. Riter, who makes oath that "he is President of the Dixie Motor Coach Corporation", etc.
The plea of privilege was contested by plaintiff and venue was alleged under Sections 23, 24 and 27 of Article 1995, Rev.Civ.Statutes.
After a hearing the plea was overruled, and from that order defendant has appealed.
We see no merit in the contention that the evidence fails to show that the defendant is a corporation. We believe that the plea of privilege establishes that fact and that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove it.
We so held in General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Lee, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 622, and cited Texas-Louisiana Power Co. v. Wells, 121 Tex. 397, 48 S.W.2d 978, in support of our holding.
Furthermore, we believe that the testimony of one of plaintiff's witnesses that he had ridden a "Dixie Motor Coach Corporation" bus, that he bought a round trip ticket to ride on it from Wichita Falls, Texas, to Sherman, Texas, and back to Wichita Falls, that the ticket was bought in the Holt Hotel, in Wichita Falls, where a sign was displayed: "Dixie Motor Coach Corporation", that he boarded the bus "at the station", and the bus had "Dixie Motor Coach Corporation" on it, and that the day before the witness was testifying, he saw a "Dixie Motor Coach Corporation bus", in the City of Wichita Falls, carrying passengers, was sufficient evidence on which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Catalon
...St. R. Co. v. Helm, 64 Tex. 147; Gallagher v. Bowie, 66 Tex. 265, 17 S.W. 407; Jordan v. Moore, 65 Tex. 363; Dixie Motor Coach Corp. v. Watson, Tex.Civ. App., 138 S.W.2d 314; Roberts v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., Tex.Civ.App. 142 S.W. 2d 315; Id., 135 Tex. 289, 143 S.W.2d Where a husband and a......
-
Burleson v. Rawlins
... ... § 292, ... 18 S.W. 138; Dixie Motor Coach Corporation v. Watson, Tex.Civ.App., ... ...
-
Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Few
...pleading or procedure. See Yellow Cab & Baggage Co. v. Smith, 30 S.W.2d 697, 702 (Tex.Civ.App., 1930, writ dism.); Dixie Motor Coach Corporation v. Watson, 138 S.W.2d 314, 315 (Tex.Civ.App., 1940, no writ); 44 T.J.2d, p. 127, sec. 2. A pro forma party does not become a real party at interes......
-
Painter Bus Lines, Inc. v. Carpenter, 10774.
..."has an agency or representative" in Bexar County, as those terms are used in Article 1995, Subd. 23. Dixie Motor Coach Corporation v. Watson, Tex. Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 314; Avery Co. of Texas v. Wakefield, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S. W. 875. In the state of the record, we presume the trial court ......