Koch v. Roedenbeck
| Decision Date | 07 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1060.) |
| Citation | 259 S.W. 328 |
| Parties | KOCH v. ROEDENBECK. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; E. A. McDowell, Judge.
Trespass to try title by Herbert Roedenbeck against Theodore F. Koch. From a judgment overruling defendant's plea of privilege, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Oliver J. Todd and W. G. Reeves, both of Beaumont, for appellant.
Smith & Crawford, of Beaumont, for appellee.
O'QUINN, J.
Roedenbeck sued Koch in the district court of Jefferson county, alleging that the plaintiff is a resident of Chambers county, Tex., and that defendant is a resident of Kleberg county, Tex., but temporarily residing in Jefferson county. The petition contains the usual allegations of a suit in trespass to try title in regard to an undivided one-sixteenth of all the oil, gas, and other minerals in and under certain land situated in Jefferson county, Tex.
Appellant, Koch, filed his plea of privilege to be sued in Kleberg county, the county of his residence, alleging that none of the exceptions to the exclusive venue in the county of one's residence mentioned in articles 1830 and 2308 of the Revised Statutes of the state of Texas existed in this cause.
Appellee, Roedenbeck, duly filed his controverting affidavit, alleging:
"That the allegations in defendant's plea to the effect that none of the exceptions to the exclusive venue in the county of one's residence mentioned in article 1830 or article 2308 of the Revised Statutes exist in said cause are wholly untrue, because this suit is for the recovery of land and is brought in trespass to try title to land wholly situated in Jefferson county, Tex., the county in which this suit was instituted, and is specifically excepted from article 1830 under section 14 thereof, wherein it provides as follows: `That suits for the recovery of land or damages thereto, suits to remove the incumbrances from land, suits to quiet the titles to land, and suits to prevent or stay waste on land must be brought in the county in which the land or a part thereof may lie.'"
The defendant excepted to the sufficiency of the controverting affidavit of plaintiff, which exceptions were overruled by the court.
Upon the hearing of the plea, the defendant presented and read to the court his plea of privilege. The plaintiff offered: (1) His affidavit controverting said plea; (2) his original petition for the purpose of showing the character of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yates v. State
...relies upon the following cases as supporting the state's contentions: Thomason v. Ham (Tex. Civ. App.) 210 S. W. 561; Koch v. Roedenbeck (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 328; Nolen v. Harding (Tex. Civ. App.) 235 S. W. 687; Knox v. Cunningham (Tex. Civ. App.) 226 S. W. 461; American Rio Grande L......
-
Oakland Motor Car Co. v. Jones
...is the best and all-sufficient evidence of the nature of the action. Yates v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 3 S.W.(2d) 114; Koch v. Roedenbeck (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 328; Nolen v. Harding (Tex. Civ. App.) 235 S. W. 687; Galbreath v. Farrell (Tex. Civ. App.) 221 S. W. 1015; Wood v. Tandy (Tex. ......
-
Galindo v. Garcia
...210 S.W. 561; Stemmons v. Matthai, Tex.Civ.App., 227 S.W. 364; Texas Company v. Tankersley, Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W. 672; Koch v. Roedenbeck, Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W. 328. There was evidence that the deed in question had been procured by fraud committed in McLennan county. The question arises, ......
-
Batex Oil Co. v. La Brisa Land & Cattle Co.
...v. Thornton, Tex.Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 429; Southwestern Surgical Supply Co. v. Scarborough, Tex.Civ.App., 15 S.W.2d 65; Koch v. Roedenbeck, Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W. 328; Baldwin v. Baldwin, Tex.Civ.App., 233 SW. 130; Pearce v. Wallis, Landers & Co., 58 Tex.Civ.App. 315, 124 S.W. 496; San Anton......