Kott v. Faircloth
| Decision Date | 26 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 6492,6492 |
| Citation | 350 S.W.2d 668 |
| Parties | Tony L. KOTT et al., Appellants, v. Edward FAIRCLOTH et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
C. B. Stanley, Houston, for appellants.
Joe J. Newman, Houston, for appellees.
This is an appeal by Geraldine Young, a feme sole, from an order of the trial court overruling her plea of privilege to be sued in Harris County, the county of her residence. Plaintiffs brought suit against several defendants alleging Geraldine Young and T. L. Kott were acting as partners in the transaction made the basis of this suit. The defendants filed separate pleas of privilege, all of which were overruled, and this was the only appeal taken. The parties will be designated here as they were in the trial court.
J. V. Stepchinski and Ed Stepchinski, also named as defendants, acting on behalf of the partnership composed of Geraldine Young and T. L. Kott, purchased cattle in Liberty County from plaintiffs. There were many separate purchases, but in the four made the basis of this action, checks were given which were not honored. None of the defendants were residents of Liberty County.
Plaintiffs relied upon sections seven and nine of Art. 1995, Texas Revised Civil Statutes, to retain venue in Liberty County. The fraud relied upon by the plaintiffs was the representation by T. L. Kott that previous checks had been paid before the last check, made the basis of their suit, was accepted and the cattle delivered.
The suit here is clearly one for breach of contract in failing to pay the balance due for the purchase of the cattle. The allegations of fraud and crime are merely incidental to the cause of action for this breach of contract. The plaintiffs accepted several payments upon the indebtedness after the last transaction sued upon. In their prayer, plaintiffs seek recovery of the unpaid balance due for such cattle. The representations on the part of T. L. Kott were at most, fraud in inducement to secure the purchase of the cattle. The law in this state is well settled that in a suit for damages for breach of contract, venue cannot be sustained in the county where fraud in inducing the execution of the contract is alleged to have occurred. Henson v. Henson, Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 285; Lewis v. Evans, Tex.Civ.App., 332 S.W.2d 795.
Our courts have repeatedly held that the dominant purpose of the venue statutes is to give a person who has been sued the right to defend such suit in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WTFO, Inc. v. Braithwaite
...protested it. See Stanford v. Dairy Queen Prods., 623 S.W.2d 797, 804 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Kott v. Faircloth, 350 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1961, no The passage of the 1983 Act was the first attempt to improve and clarify the venue rules. 6 The newes......
-
Schulz v. Schulz
...to the cause of action actually asserted, it cannot be relied upon as an exception to defendant's privilege. Kott v. Faircloth, 350 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont 1961). Subdivision 7 of Article 1995 (not relied upon by appellee in her controverting affidavit) provides in substance that......
-
Key v. Davis
...of the other partners. Vahlsing, Inc. v. Esco, Ltd., 496 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1973, writ dism'd). In Kott v. Faircloth, 350 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1961, no writ) it was stated: "The Commission of Appeals . . . long ago settled the question that causes of a......
-
Nelson Intern., Inc. v. Bolin, 16029
...181 S.W.2d 285 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1944, no writ); Lewis v. Evans,332 S.W.2d 795 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1960, no writ); Kott v. Faircloth,350 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1961, no writ); Sparks v. Chrysler Corporation, Airtemp Division, 353 S.W.2d 477 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1961, no ......