Hanssard v. Ledbetter, 5758
Decision Date | 05 January 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 5758,5758 |
Citation | 561 S.W.2d 34 |
Parties | Ken HANSSARD, d/b/a Ken Hanssard Paint and Paper of Mexia, Appellant, v. H. J. LEDBETTER, Jr., et ux., Appellees. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
This is a venue case. Plaintiff-Appellees H. J. Ledbetter, Jr. and wife brought this suit against Defendant-Appellant Ken Hanssard, d/b/a Ken Hanssard Paint and Paper of Mexia under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act for damages recoverable under that Act for alleged improper installation of wallpaper and overcharge for materials. The Ledbetters filed the suit in McLennan County, the County of their residence where the work done by Hanssard was performed.
Defendant Hanssard filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Limestone County, the County of his residence. Plaintiffs Ledbetter filed their controverting plea to the plea of privilege, invoking Exceptions 7 and 30 of Article 1995, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, and Section 17.56 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, the special venue provision of the Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act.
The trial court after hearing overruled the Defendant Hanssard's plea of privilege, from which he appeals.
More specifically, Plaintiffs alleged four counts or grounds of "false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices" as authorized under Section 17.46, Texas Business and Commerce Code, and sought relief therefor under the provisions of Section 17.50, Texas Business and Commerce Code.
Subdivision 30 of Article 1995, V.T.C.S. provides:
Now, Section 17.56 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, the special venue provision of the Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, as it was in effect at the time of the institution of this suit, provided:
As stated, Plaintiffs controverted the Defendant's plea of privilege under Subdivisions 7 and 30, Article 1995, V.T.C.S., and Section 17.56 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. However, Subdivision 7 is not in issue before us, but Subdivision 30, Article 1995 and Section 17.56, Texas Business and Commerce Code, hereinabove quoted, are in issue on this appeal.
At the hearing before the trial court on the plea of privilege, the Plaintiffs introduced proof that the Defendant Hanssard was "doing business" in McLennan County; however, they (the Plaintiffs) offered no proof concerning their cause of action under Sections 17.46 and 17.50 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.
After overruling the Defendant's plea of privilege, the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, wherein he found that by reference to Plaintiffs' pleadings this suit was brought under the Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, and that Defendant Hanssard is doing business in McLennan County. Then, based upon these findings the trial court concluded that under Subdivision 30, Article 1995, V.T.C.S., and Section 17.56 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, venue of this cause properly lay in McLennan County.
Defendant-Appellant Hanssard asserts the trial court erred in overruling his plea of privilege because Plaintiff-Appellees Ledbetter failed to prove their cause of action under Subdivision 30, Article 1995, V.T.C.S. and Section 17.56, Texas Business and Commerce Code. Plaintiff-Appellees on the other hand contend that under these venue provisions they are not required to prove their cause of action, but that they have met their burden by merely proving the Defendant-Appellant is "doing business" in McLennan County, and that their pleadings may be looked to in order to show that this suit is brought under the Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act. In other words, Plaintiff-Appellees are saying that they are not required to prove their cause of action in order to establish venue in McLennan County.
Therefore, the precise question before us is this: Since the Plaintiffs alleged a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, under Section 17.46 and 17.50, and then proved only that the Defendant is "doing business" in McLennan County, can the Plaintiffs establish venue in McLennan County against the non-resident Defendant? Stated differently, are Plaintiffs required to prove their cause of action in order to sustain venue?
The only two cases in which this problem has been squarely dealt with under Section 17.56 as it existed at the time of institution of this suit, insofar as we have been able to ascertain, are Doyle v. Grady (Texarkana Tex.Civ.App.1976) 543 S.W.2d 893, no writ, and Hudson and Hudson Realtors v. Savage (Tyler Tex.Civ.App.1976) 545 S.W.2d 863, no writ. Both of these cases held that under the venue provision of the Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, the plaintiff must follow the general rule and both plead and prove a cause of action to support venue. Also see Sundowner Manufacturing Co. v. Kinman (Texarkana Tex.Civ.App.1976) 536...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
L & M-Surco Mfg., Inc. v. Winn Tile Co., M-SURCO
...Texarkana 1976, no writ); Hudson & Hudson Realtors v. Savage, 545 S.W.2d 863 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1976, no writ); and Hanssard v. Ledbetter, 561 S.W.2d 34 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1978, no writ). In Doyle and Hudson the courts held that the general rule requiring a plaintiff to plead and prove a c......
-
Commercial Equipment Leasing Co. v. Steve's Oil Field Services, Inc.
...amendment. See Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harrison, 578 S.W.2d 186 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (14th Dist.) 1979, no writ); Hanssard v. Ledbetter, 561 S.W.2d 34 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1978, no There is no dispute that the provisions of the Act apply to this case, for the definition of consumer......
-
Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. of Texas v. Harrison, B1949
...the time of institution of the suit. Temple News Agency v. Want Ads of Waco, 573 S.W.2d 269 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1978, no writ); Hanssard v. Ledbetter, 561 S.W.2d 34 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1978, no writ); Cacanay Corp. v. Shepherd, 336 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston, writ dism'd). This case fal......
-
Pettit v. England
...in such county. Joc Oil Aromatics v. Commercial Fuel Oil Co., 564 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston (1st Dist.) 1978, no writ); Hanssard v. Ledbetter, 561 S.W.2d 34 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco, 1978, no writ); Doyle v. Grady, 543 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1976, no writ); Hudson & Hudson Real......