Jackson v. Hall
| Decision Date | 03 November 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. A-1701.,A-1701. |
| Citation | 214 S.W.2d 458 |
| Parties | JACKSON et al. v. HALL, Chief Justice, et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Original proceeding by Calvin Jackson and others for a writ of mandamus to compel Reuben A. Hall, Chief Justice, and the other Justices of the Court of Civil Appeals of the Sixth Supreme Judicial District at Texarkana, to certify certain questions of law to the Supreme Court.
Application granted and issuance of writ ordered, unless the Court of Civil Appeals amends a judgment thereof as directed.
Norman, Stone & Norman, of Jacksonville, and Shook & Shook, of Dallas, Texas, for relators.
Strasburger, Price, Holland, Kelton & Miller and Royal H. Brin, Jr., all of Dallas, for respondents.
This is a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the justices of the Court of Civil Appeals for the Sixth Supreme Judicial District of Texas, at Texarkana, to certify certain questions of law to this court.
The cause had its origin in the District Court of Cherokee County wherein the relators instituted two suits against the East Texas Motor Freight Line for damages arising out of a collision. The relators alleged that they resided in Cherokee County and that the East Texas Motor Freight Line was a corporation with an agent in that county. The defendant corporation filed its plea of privilege in both cases to be sued in Dallas County, the place of its corporate residence. It did not specifically deny the averment of relators' petition that it was a corporation. The relators sought to retain venue in Cherokee County under that portion of Subdivision 23, article 1995, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. which provides that suits against a private corporation may be brought "in the county in which the plaintiff resided at the time the cause of action or part thereof arose, provided such corporation, association or company has an agency or representative in such county."
The two pleas of privilege were tried together, and will be so considered here. All the evidence introduced related solely to whether the corporation had an agent or representative in Cherokee County. The relators failed to show that they resided in Cherokee County or that a cause of action or a part thereof arose in Cherokee or any other county. Both pleas were overruled by the trial court, and an appeal was prosecuted to the Court of Civil Appeals at Texarkana. The latter court correctly held that under the 1943 amendment to Subdivision 23 proof only that the corporation had an agent or representative in Cherokee County was insufficient to retain the venue in that county. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, and, instead of remanding the cause for a new trial on the venue question, the cause was ordered transferred to one of the district courts of Dallas County.
The relators make no complaint of the reversal of the trial court judgment but contend that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in refusing to remand the cause for a new trial on the venue question rather than ordering it transferred to Dallas County. They ask that numerous questions be certified to this court inquiring if the refusal of the Court of Civil Appeals to remand the venue issue for a new trial is in conflict with the holdings in a host of other decisions, and if, as a result thereof, the Texarkana court erred in refusing to concur with those decisions.
Some of the cases relied upon for the conflict are as follows: Hayes v. Penney, Tex.Civ.App., 215 S.W. 571; Hughes v. Gunter, Tex.Civ.App., 136 S.W.2d 253; United Gas Corporation v. Shepherd Laundries Co., Inc., 144 Tex. 164, 189 S.W.2d 185; Wallace v. Burson, 132 Tex. 15, 120 S.W.2d 443; Williams v. Safety Casualty Co., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southwestern Transfer Company v. Slay
...Kent, was not available at the time of the hearing. Therefore, we reverse and remand rather than render judgment. Jackson v. Hall, 147 Tex. 245, 214 S.W.2d 458, 459 (1948); Lanford v. Smith, 128 Tex. 373, 99 S.W.2d 593, 594 (1936); Cement Transports, Inc. v. Menchaca, 420 S.W .2d 143, 145 (......
-
Industrial Acc. Bd. v. Parker
...or the parties. Justice requires that the case be reversed and remanded. Lanford v. Smith, 128 Tex. 373, 99 S.W.2d 593; Jackson v. Hall, 147 Tex. 245, 214 S.W.2d 458. Remanded and a new trial necessitates some further discussion of good cause for Parker's failure to present his claim within......
-
H. E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bruner, 5487
...judgment must fall. The deposition of the plaintiff was the only evidence offered on the trial. Under the authority of Jackson v. Hall, 147 Tex. 245, 214 S.W.2d 458 (1948), I would reverse the judgment and remand the case to the trial court for possible further ...
-
Blount v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
...tried on the wrong theory and, in the interests of justice, remand the cause to the district court for a new trial. Jackson v. Hall, 147 Tex. 245, 214 S.W.2d 458 (1948); United Gas Corp. v. Shepherd Laundries Co., 144 Tex. 164, 189 S.W.2d 485 The applicable statute is the Texas Employees Un......