Fishbein v. Thornton
Decision Date | 31 March 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 15084,15084 |
Citation | 247 S.W.2d 404 |
Parties | FISHBEIN v. THORNTON et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Edward M. Burke, Chicago, Ill., Scurry, Scurry & Pace, Dallas, for relator.
Herbert K. Hyde, Oklahoma City, Okl., James Martin, Thompson, Knight, Wright & Simmons and Pinkney Grissom, Dallas, for respondents.
The above matter having been submitted March 31, 1952, at 10:00 A.M., after hearing argument, the majority of the Court denied the application of Morris Fishbein, relator, for leave to file an application for a writ of prohibition, or in the alternative for a writ of mandamus. Mr. BOND, Chief Justice, in his opinion filed March 31, 1952, gave a statement of the history leading up to the filing of the application for permission to file petition for writ of prohibition, or mandamus, and it will not be repeated.
The record before us shows, in addition to that stated in Judge BOND'S opinion, that after the State court petition was filed in the 44th District Court of Dallas County, one of the defendants in said cause, Morris Fishbein, on December 22, 1950, filed in the action of Harry Hoxsey his plea to the jurisdiction, and subject thereto certain motions, exceptions and general answer; that on December 28, 1951 relator Fishbein's plea to the jurisdiction of the District Court was heard by the trial judge and overruled. It also appears from the application for the writ, tendered with the motion to file the same, that such cause is set for trial in the 44th District Court of Dallas County on April 2, 1952. The only material question raised in the application for the writ of prohibition and/or mandamus is the jurisdiction of the 44th District Court of Dallas County to try the cause of action alleged by Hoxsey against Dr. Fishbein. Our Supreme Court in the case of York v. State, 73 Tex. 651, 11 S.W. 869, and since then, has uniformly held that under our Texas Practice any appearance by the defendant in a cause in a Texas State Court is sufficient to give such court jurisdiction, and that a written answer for the purpose of pleading to the jurisdiction of the court is a voluntary appearance which brings the defendant before the court and subjects him to its jurisdiction. An answer, in our practice, is as follows:
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 85:
Under such Rule, a plea to the jurisdiction is a part of the answer. The U. S. Supreme Court has held such Rule constitutional. In York v. State of Texas, 137 U.S. 15, 11 S.Ct. 9, 10, 34 L.Ed. 604, in denying an attack upon such Rule, that Court held:
The defendant, Fishbein, when he filed his answer, submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the 44th District Court which court now has jurisdiction. See also Hughes v. Hughes, Tex.Civ.App., 221 S.W.2d 1003.
The judgment of the District Court overruling the plea to the jurisdiction was interlocutory and not appealable. This Court therefore has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition or mandamus as prayed for. Texas Constitution, Art. 5, sec. 6, Vernon's Ann.St. The motion is denied.
BOND, C. J., having amended his original opinion, now joins the majority in the overruling of such motion.
Relator Morris Fishbein has presented motion for leave to file application for writ of prohibition, or, in the alternative, for writ of mandamus. A brief history leading up to this controversy is reflected from relator's application will be enlightening as to the issues here presented.
On September 27, 1948 Harry M. Hoxsey filed suit in the 44th District Court in Dallas County, Texas (No. 26, 139-B) against Morris Fishbein, William Engle, W. R. Hearst, Jr., American Weekly, Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., and American Medical Association, seeking to recover damages for libelous publication. That suit was removed to the U. S. District Court at Dallas. A trial to the merits was had on March 16, 1949 only against the Hearst Publications, a nonsuit having been taken against the other defendants, they not having been served with citation. On March 18, 1949 judgment was entered dismissing Fishbein, Engle and certain other named defendants, without prejudice, and in favor of plaintiff Hoxsey against Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., for $2, Hoxsey v. Fishbein, D.C., 83 F.Supp. 282, which judgment was paid and the plaintiff Hoxsey executed a full and complete satisfaction and discharge of that judgment.
While the cause was being tried in Federal Court, on March 18, 1949, Fishbein came to Dallas at the request of the defendants for the sole and only purpose of testifying in such suit. On arrival in Dallas he went directly to a hotel, and on the next morning he was served with a subpoena to appear as a witness to testify on behalf of the defendants. After breakfast, he went directly to the office of the attorneys for defendants, where the remained until going to the Federal Court in response to the subpoena. He remained outside the door of the courtroom until called to testify, and after finishing his testimony walked out of the courtroom, and as he did so was served with citation issued out of the 44th District Court of Dallas County in suit entitled Harry M. Hoxsey v. Morris Fishbein, No. 31,011-B, which had theretofore been filed in said Court on March 18, 1949,-same being the identical suit filed in the Federal Court. Immediately after the citation had been served, Fishbein went to his hotel, checked out, and en route to depart by airplane for Chicago, stopped to see a friend who was ill.
On March 22, 1949 Hoxsey amended his petition in the suit filed in the District Court and made Millard Heath, a resident citizen of Dallas County, Texas, a party defendant; whereupon Fishbein filed a petition for removal to the U. S. District Court, which, on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oates v. Blackburn
...policy and upon better administration of justice free from interference. Lovejoy v. Foster, D.C., 77 F.Supp. 414, 415; Fishbein v. Thornton, 247 S.W.2d 404, 409 (Tex.Civ.App.), not writ (Concurring The decision in York v. State, 73 Tex. 651, 11 S.W. 869 (1889) has, however, limited the Texa......
-
Thompson v. Republic Small Business Invest. Co.
...plea in abatement and motion to dismiss. An order overruling a plea to the jurisdiction is interlocutory and not appealable. Fishbein v. Thornton, 247 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas 1952, no writ); Witt v. Witt, 205 S.W.2d 612 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth 1947, no writ). So also is an order ......
-
Vega v. Davila
...support of their contention, the Vegas rely on Stewart v. Ramsey, 242 U.S. 128 (1916), and Chief Justice Bond's concurrence in Fishbein v. Thornton, 247 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1952, no writ) (Bond, C.J., concurring). The Stewart court The true rule, well founded in reason and su......
-
Wilbanks v. State ex rel. Needham, 5426
...does not lie from such order: Texas State Board of Examiners in Optometry v. Carp, 162 Tex. 1, 343 S.W.2d 242; Fishbein v. Thornton, Tex.Civ.App. (Dallas), NWH, 247 S.W.2d 404; Witt v. Witt, Tex.Civ.App. (Ft. Worth) NWH, 205 S.W.2d 612; Carpenter Body Works, Inc. v. McCulley, et al., Tex.Ci......