Key v. Mineral Wells Inv. Co., 1571.
| Decision Date | 26 June 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 1571.,1571. |
| Citation | 96 S.W.2d 804 |
| Parties | KEY v. MINERAL WELLS INV. CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Palo Pinto County Court; J. Pat Corrigan, Judge.
Suit by the Mineral Wells Investment Company against A. J. Key and another. From a judgment denying his plea of privilege and a judgment on the merits, named defendant appeals.
Reversed and cause transferred.
O. E. Nelson, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
Victor W. Bouldin, of Mineral Wells, for appellee.
Mineral Wells Investment Company, a corporation, filed suit in the county court of Palo Pinto county against D. T. Simmons and A. J. Key upon a note executed by Simmons payable in Palo Pinto county and to foreclose a mortgage lien on an automobile. Key is a resident of Wichita county and bought the automobile from an automobile dealer in said county. The appeal is by Key from a judgment denying his plea of privilege to be sued in Wichita county and a judgment of foreclosure against him as to the mortgage lien on the automobile and for the debt and foreclosure against Simmons. Simmons did not answer.
Since we are of the opinion that the cause must be reversed because of the error in overruling the plea of privilege, the judgment on the merits will not be discussed.
Over objection of the appellant, Key, the note, mortgage, and other instruments upon which the suit is based were introduced in evidence without proof of their execution. It has been definitely determined that, when the party charged with the execution of an instrument files a plea of privilege, such plea has the effect of a plea of non est factum requiring proof of the execution of the instruments sued on by the plaintiff who has filed a controverting affidavit. Johnson v. Dallas Cooperage & Woodenware Co., 120 Tex. 27, 34 S.W.(2d) 845; Berry v. Pierce Petroleum Corp., 120 Tex. 452, 39 S.W. (2d) 824. The only question here is whether the filing of a plea of privilege by a codefendant of the defendant charged with the execution of the instruments has also the effect of the filing of a plea of non est factum, and requires extrinsic proof of the execution of the instruments sued on. We construe the case of Masterson v. Lumley (Tex.Civ.App.) 78 S.W.(2d) 244, as holding that a plea of privilege filed by a defendant who is not charged with the execution of the instrument sued on necessitates proof of the execution of such instruments.
The case of Flynn v. Atlas Life Ins. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 81 S.W.(2d) 772, is relied on by the appellee as holding to the contrary.
The appellee relies upon subdivision 29a, art. 1995, R.S.1925, as added by Acts 1927, 1st Called Sess., c. 72, § 2 (Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1995, subd. 29a), in seeking to require the appellant, Key, to try his case in Palo Pinto County instead of Wichita County, the county of his residence. It was incumbent upon the appellee, under the situation here disclosed, to plead and prove facts showing (1) the execution by Simmons of a contract in writing to perform his obligation in Palo Pinto county (subdivision 5, art. 1995), and (2) that Key is a necessary party defendant. These venue facts were alleged, but not all of them were proved. See Compton v. Elliott (Tex.Com.App.) 88 S.W.(2d) 91. As stated, appellant objected to the introduction of the note and other instruments, because their execution had not been proved. The objection was overruled. We think this was error and requires a reversal of the judgment.
It is conceded that, if Simmons had claimed his privilege, plaintiff would have been required to prove...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vahlsing, Inc. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
...a plea of privilege. Wallace v. Income Properties/Equity Trust of Santa Ana, California, supra 538 S.W.2d at 19; cf. Key v. Mineral Wells Inc. Co., 96 S.W.2d 804, 805 (Tex.Civ.App. Eastland 1936, no writ); Radford v. Hutto, 113 S.W.2d 563, 564-65 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1938, no writ). Defen......
-
Patterson v. Dunigan Tool & Supply Co.
...Doubtless the pleadings will be recast and made sufficient for a full and fair development of the true venue facts. In Key v. Mineral Wells Inv. Co., 96 S.W.2d 804, this court reversed and the judgment. In that case the record presented a state of facts very similar to those here involved a......
-
Graham v. Ozuna
...& Bro. v. Low, 42 Tex.Civ.App. 556, 94 S.W. 411; Kennedy & Gafford v. Reppond, Tex.Civ.App., 226 S.W. 140; Key v. Mineral Wells Investment Co., Tex.Civ.App., 96 S.W.2d 804; Sublett v. Hurst, Tex.Civ.App., 164 S.W. 448; Tarrant v. Walker, 140 Tex. 249, 166 S.W.2d 900; Texas Plains Lodge No. ......
-
York Supply Co. v. Dunigan Tool & Supply Co.
...of action against J. M. Lawrence. Stephenville Production Credit Ass'n v. Drake, Tex.Civ.App., 226 S.W.2d 888; Key v. Mineral Wells Inv. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 96 S.W.2d 804. The rule, as to what constitutes a necessary party under subdivision 29a is set out in the case of Union Bus Lines v. By......