Gann v. Keith
Decision Date | 03 December 1952 |
Docket Number | No. A-3711,A-3711 |
Citation | 253 S.W.2d 413,151 Tex. 626 |
Parties | GANN et al. v. KEITH et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Murray & Murray, Floresville, Charles J. Lieck, San Antonio, for appellants.
Carl Wright Johnson and Nat L. Hardy, San Antonio, for appellees.
The Court of Civil Appeals at San Antonio certifices to this Court certain questions hereinafter set out, and the certificate is accompanied by the entire record in the case, together with the briefs of the parties. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is reported in 249 S.W.2d 683, and contains a comprehensive statement of the facts and the reasons for its decision. In order to show the background of the questions certified, we quote from the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals certain controlling facts, as follows:
'The former opinion of this Court in this cause is reported in 240 S.W.2d 822. The opinion of the Supreme Court upon petition for writ of mandamus, Gann v. Murray, is reported in 246 S.W.2d 616, 620.
'In the mandamus proceedings Gann and others, plaintiffs below and appellants here, sought to compel this Court to certify the following question to the Supreme Court:
"When on the trial of the pleas of privilege filed by the appellees, Raymond Earl Mabra and Ben E. Keith, appellants proved commission of two crimes in Wilson County, Texas, by the appellee, Raymond Earl Mabra, while acting in the course of his employment for said appellee, Ben E. Keith both of which crimes were negligence as a matter of law, was it necessary for appellants to prove that at least one of such crimes was the proximate cause of their injuries in order to establish venue in Wilson County, Texas, under Exception 9 of Article 1995, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes of Texas?'
'In its opinion the Supreme Court suggested that a negative answer was proper and held that,
'The Supreme Court's direction to this Court was as follows:
'The Supreme Court disapproved of the rule heretofore followed by this Court and set forth in Thomas v. Meyer, Tex.Civ.App., 168 S.W.2d 681, and held that although exception 9 of Article 1995, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats., required a causal connection between the injury suffered and the crime committed for an action to constitute a 'suit based upon a crime,' it was not necessary to prove this causal connection by a preponderance of the evidence as this was not a 'venue fact' requiring proof. It was said that 'this (causal connection) is determined on a venue hearing as a matter of law from the pleadings.'
The Court of Civil Appeals in its opinion sets out certain findings of fact made by the trial judge, which will not be repeated here. We quote further from the opinion as follows:
'Appellants' points of error are as follows:
'Appellees' counterpoints are as follows:
'It was the second counterpoint which the Supreme Court held was improperly sustained. The issues remaining in the case relate to asserted violations of Article 6701d, § 121, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats., and Article 827a, § 9-a, of Vernon's Ann.Pen.Code.
'Article 6701d, § 121, provides that:
'The allegations of the controverting affidavits relied upon as raising the point are as follows:
"(c) Plaintiff alleges that said defendant permitted said vehicle to be on the highway at nighttime without having all of the lights lit thereon, which was in violation of the Penal Laws of Texas, and a proximate cause of the plaintiffs' damages and injuries."
The evidence relied upon to show a violation of Article 6701d, § 121, is also set out in the opinion, which will not be repeated here. The Court of Civil Appeals in its opinion further said:
first point.
'The burden of appellants' second point is complicated and ingenious.
Article 6701d, § 138, provides that when a motor vehicle becomes disabled upon the highway lighted flares shall be placed on the roadway 'at a distance of approximately one hundred (100) feet in advance of the vehicle, (and) one at a distance of approximately one hundred (100) feet to the rear of the vehicle.'
'Appellants' second point does not present the contention that the placing of a flare 82 feet to the rear of the vehicle (as found by the trial court) did not constitute a compliance with Article 6701d, but refers to Article 827a, § 9-a of the Penal Code. This section provides that a warning signal shall be placed upon the highway not less than 150 feet and not more than 200 feet from the parked vehicle in every direction from which another vehicle may approach. It is argued that Article 6701d, § 138, is unconstitutional and void for want of certainty; that it therefore could not operate to repeal Article 827a, § 9-a, of the Penal Code which is consequently now in full force and effect. The constitutional provision involved is Article 1, § 10, Vernon's Ann.St., Griffin v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 498, 218 S.W. 494, which provides that, * * *'We have no one before us charged with crime in a criminal prosecution, but in order to determine what should be a relatively uncomplicated venue matter, we are supposed to act like we did. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals, so far as we know, has never condemned Article 6701d, § 138, and the Texarkana Court of Civil Appeals has held that Article 6701d, § 138, repealed Article 827a, § 9-a, of the Penal Code, Simmons v. Germany, Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 774, 776, and thus considered the same as a valid operative statutory provision.
'The Texarkana Court said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rummel v. Estelle
...objection when a defendant challenges the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted. Gann v. Keith, 151 Tex. 626, 253 S.W.2d 413, 417 (1952). III. The Panel The panel majority held that Rummel's life sentence under the Texas recidivist statute must be considered one for ......
-
Spring v. Caldwell
...or how the question is presented. Barnes v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 183, 170 S.W. 548, 550 (Tex.Cr.App. 1914); Accord Gann v. Keith, 151 Tex. 626, 253 S.W.2d 413, 417 (1952); Gohlman, Lester & Co. v. Whittle, 114 Tex. 548, 273 S.W. 808, 812 (1925); Lovejoy v. Lillie, 569 S.W.2d 501, 503 (Tex.Ci......
-
Dempsey-Tegeler & Co. v. Flowers
...or applicability of a criminal statute to a particular party or transaction may be raised in a venue proceeding. Gann v. Keith, 151 Tex. 626, 253 S.W.2d 413, 417 (1952). Plaintiffs rely almost exclusively upon McQueen v. Belcher, supra. While we have great respect for both the court and the......
-
Cabell's, Inc. v. City of Nacogdoches
...The ordinance in suit merely creates situations within the potential jurisdiction of both civil and criminal courts. See, Gann v. Keith, 151 Tex. 626, 253 S.W.2d 413; City of Austin v. Austin City Cemetery Ass'n, supra. Then the next question to be considered-and it seems to us to be a ques......