Green v. Brown
| Decision Date | 08 April 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7402.) |
| Citation | 271 S.W. 394 |
| Parties | GREEN v. BROWN. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
A. M. Green, of San Juan, A. G. Walker, of Dallas, and Bonner, Bonner & Sanford, of Wichita Falls, for plaintiff in error.
Gause & Kirkpatrick, of Mercedes, for defendant in error.
On June 28, 1924, defendant in error, A. N. Brown, instituted suit against plaintiff in error, H. T. Green; the petition alleging that the latter was a resident of Wichita county, Tex., the cause of action being damages arising from a failure to deliver to defendant in error twenty shares of the stock of the First National Bank of Mercedes, Tex., of the par value of one hundred dollars per share. Plaintiff in error was duly cited for the September term of the Ninety-Third district court of Hidalgo county, and on August 2, 1924, before the beginning of said term, filed his plea of privilege to be sued in Wichita county. No controverting affidavit was filed in the cause, and at the succeeding term, on December 15, 1924, judgment by default was taken by defendant in error against plaintiff in error in the sum of $750.
The filing of a plea of privilege in conformity to the Act of April 2, 1917, article 1903, Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, creates a prima facie case of the right of the defendant to change the venue. If the plaintiff desires to controvert the plea of privilege, he must file a controverting plea under oath, setting out specifically the facts relied on to confer jurisdiction on the court in which the suit is pending. When such controverting plea is filed, a hearing shall not be had until a copy of the controverting plea is served on the defendant or his attorney for at least 10 days exclusive of day of service and hearing. No such controverting plea was filed, and consequently no notice was given of any hearing. In the case of Craig v. Pittman (Tex. Com. App.) 250 S. W. 667, it was held that nothing more was required of a defendant, in the absence of a controverting affidavit, than the filing of his plea of privilege. The court said:
"In other words, the nonresident defendant in Texas can file his plea by appearance day and dismiss the case from his mind, knowing that, under the law itself, the case must be transferred to his home county unless,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yates v. State
...S. W. 1076; Box v. Deming Inv. Co., 286 S. W. 956; Cobb Grain Co. v. Watson, 290 S. W. 842; Bishop v. Galbraith, 246 S. W. 416; Green v. Brown, 271 S. W. 394; Bennett v. Rose, 226 S. W. 143; Davis v. Southland Cotton Oil Co., 259 S. W. 298; Meadows v. Turner, 270 S. W. 899; Wallace v. Adams......
-
Norris v. Gulf Production Co.
...the cause transferred to the proper court for trial. Russell Grader Mfg. Co. v. McMillin, Tex.Civ.App., 271 S.W. 124; Green v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 271 S.W. 394; Barnum et al. v. Lancaster Hardware Co., Tex.Civ.App., 40 S.W.2d 1103. In construing said Article 2007 it is further held that th......
-
C. C. Slaughter Co. v. Slaughter
...667; Schumacher v. Dolive, 112 Tex. 564, 250 S. W. 673; Davis v. Southland Cotton Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 298; Green v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 271 S. W. 394; Doak v. Biggs (Tex. Civ. App.) 235 S. W. Appellee asserts the appellants waived their plea of privilege by proceeding to t......
-
Box v. Deming Inv. Co.
...Krueger v. Waugh (Tex. Civ. App.) 261 S. W. 196; Russell Grader Mfg. Co. v. McMillin (Tex. Civ. App.) 271 S. W. 124; Green v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 271 S. W. 394; Revised Statutes 1911, arts. 1910 and 1903; and district court rule Appellant contends, however, that the case of Davis v. Sout......