Jones v. Hickman

Decision Date28 April 1932
Docket NumberNo. 1542-5858.,1542-5858.
Citation48 S.W.2d 982
PartiesJONES v. HICKMAN, Chief Justice, et al.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Owen & Owen, of Eastland, for relator.


The relator, F. A. Jones, filed a suit in the district court of Eastland county against the respondents, the Oakland Motor Car Company and one C. J. Boyd, as defendants. In said suit, the relator sought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by the relator as a result of the negligence of said defendants. Briefly stated, the allegations of the plaintiff's petition in that case are to the following effect: That the Oakland Motor Car Company is a Michigan corporation, with permit to do business in this state, and that said company has an agent in this state who resides in Dallas county; that C. J. Boyd, who resides in Eastland county, does business in Eastland county under the trade-name of Boyd Motor Company; that the Oakland Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, assembling and selling automobiles; that Boyd is the duly authorized agent and dealer in the products of the Oakland Company; that on December 8, 1926, the plaintiff, Jones, purchased from the defendant Boyd a certain automobile manufactured by the Oakland Company; that said automobile was, by said company, carelessly and negligently manufactured, and placed on the market for sale, in that some of its mechanical parts were defective and improperly assembled; that Boyd, in selling the automobile to the plaintiff, represented it as being properly made, and its parts properly assembled, and failed to warn the plaintiff of the defective construction of said automobile; that some six weeks after the purchase of the automobile the plaintiff was driving same along the highway in Eastland county when, because of said defects therein, the automobile failed to function properly, resulting in the automobile running off the highway into a ditch and injuring the plaintiff.

For these injuries, the plaintiff sought damages from the Oakland Company and Boyd. The respondent the Oakland Company filed its plea of privilege to be sued in the county of its residence in this state, to wit, Dallas county. The plea of privilege was in all respects in conformity to article 2007 of the Revised Statutes. The plaintiff, Jones, filed his controverting plea, containing a general demurrer to the plea of privilege, and also containing allegations of fact upon which the plaintiff relied to confer venue on the court where the suit was pending, and, by reference, the plaintiff's petition in the suit was made a part of the controverting plea. At the hearing of the plea of privilege, the plaintiff, Jones, introduced in evidence his petition in said suit. No relation between Boyd and the Oakland Company was shown, except by the allegations contained in the plaintiff's petition. There was no evidence to show that the Oakland Company has an agency or representative in Eastland county, or that, prima facie, the said company rested under any liability to the plaintiff. The trial court overruled the plea of privilege, and the Oakland Company appealed from that judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals for the Eleventh district reversed said judgment. In reversing the case, the Court of Civil Appeals for the Eleventh district held, in effect, that the allegations contained in the plaintiff's petition did not constitute competent evidence of the facts there alleged. The case is styled Oakland Motor Company v. Jones, and is reported in (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S.W.(2d) 862.

The relator seeks, in the present proceedings, to have the Supreme Court issue mandamus to compel the judges of said Court of Civil Appeals to certify the above case to the Supreme Court, on the ground that the decision of the said Court of Civil Appeals in said case conflicts with the decision of other Courts of Civil Appeals in the following cases: Thomason v. Ham, 210 S. W. 561; Nolen v. Harding, 235 S. W. 687; Koch v. Roedenbeck, 259 S. W. 328; Yates v. State, 3 S.W. (2d) 114; Payne v. Coleman, 232 S. W. 537; Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Kincaid, 19 S.W.(2d) 144; American Rio Grande Land and Irrigation Co. v. Karle, 237 S. W. 358.

The test by which a conflict...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Wilson's Pharmacy, Inc. v. Behrens Drug Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1973
    ...evidence of the nature of the suit. See Oakland Motor Car Co. v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 861 (mand. den., Jones v. Hickman, 121 Tex. 405, 48 S.W.2d 982). The character of the suit as disclosed by the petition cannot be changed for venue purposes by allegations in the controverting pl......
  • Meredith v. McClendon, 7242.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1938
    ...178, 26 S.W.2d 903; Stevens v. Wilson, 120 Tex. 584, 39 S.W.2d 1088; Layton v. Hightower, 118 Tex. 166, 12 S. W.2d 110; Jones v. Hickman, 121 Tex. 405, 48 S.W.2d 982; Harris v. Wilson, 122 Tex. 323, 59 S.W.2d The dominant purpose of our venue statutes is to give a person who has been sued t......
  • A. H. Belo Corporation v. Blanton
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 11, 1938
    ...Co. v. Rogers, Tex.Civ.App., 65 S.W.2d 801, 804; 27 Tex. Jur. 718; World Co. v. Dow, 116 Tex. 146, 287 S.W. 241, 242; Jones v. Hickman, 121 Tex. 405, 48 S.W.2d 982; Jones v. Womack-Henning & Rollins, Tex.Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 635, 636; Highway Motor Freight Lines v. Slaughter, Tex.Civ.App., 8......
  • Humbert v. Adams
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • September 28, 1962
    ...v. Flintkote Co., Tex.Civ.App., 207 S.W.2d 635; Oakland Motor Car Co. v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 861; mandamus denied, 121 Tex. 405, 48 S.W.2d 982; Haney v. Henry, Tex.Civ.App., 307 S.W.2d 649; Ladner v. Reliance Corp., 156 Tex. 158, 293 S.W.2d 758; Union Bus Lines v. Byrd, 142 Tex. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT