Lanford v. Smith, 12737.
| Decision Date | 09 December 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 12737.,12737. |
| Citation | 99 S.W.2d 593 |
| Parties | LANFORD et al. v. SMITH, Chief Justice, et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
This is a motion to file an original petition for mandamus in this court. It is sought to have the Court of Civil Appeals certify certain alleged conflicts under article 1855, R.C.S.1925. The motion was filed by J. E. Lanford et al. against the honorable justices of the Court of Civil Appeals at San Antonio. It makes no other party or parties. The petition which accompanies the motion is rather meager, but from all the instruments before us we gather the following facts:
Emma Lovett et al. sued J. E. Lanford et al. in the district court of Hidalgo county, Tex., on a note alleged to be payable in that county and to have been signed by Lanford et al. Lanford et al. filed pleas of privilege, in due form of law, to be sued in Willacy county, the county of their residences. Lovett et al. filed controverting affidavits claiming venue in Hidalgo county because the alleged note was, by its terms, payable there. The case was tried on the issue of venue alone. At the trial Lovett et al. offered no evidence to rebut the pleas of privilege, except the note itself. The trial court overruled the pleas of privilege, and Lanford et al. appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals at San Antonio. On final hearing in that court the judgment of the district court was reversed for lack of supporting evidence and the cause remanded for a new trial. The remand was on the theory that it did not appear from the record that the facts had been fully developed.
Lanford et al. contended in the Court of Civil Appeals that that court, when it reversed the judgment of the district court, should render judgment changing the venue to Willacy county, or that the remand should be with instructions to the trial court to do so. In this connection they contended that in appeals in venue cases the Court of Civil Appeals, under the statute, must render judgment sustaining the plea of privilege when it determines that the trial court was in error in overruling the same. The Court of Civil Appeals in effect overruled this contention. Lanford et al. contended in the Court of Civil Appeals that the above ruling was in conflict with certain opinions by the Commission of Appeals and by other Courts of Civil Appeals. It is not necessary to mention these cases, except to say that the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is not in conflict with any opinion of the commission or of this court.
It appears from the record before us that only the justices of the Court of Civil Appeals are made parties to this mandamus proceeding. Lovett et al., though the real parties at interest, are not joined in any manner. It is the settled law of this state that all persons or parties whose rights would be injuriously affected by the issuance of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dick v. Kazen
...to certify a question of law to the Supreme Court. Atwood Cotton Breeding Farms v. Gallagher 123 Tex. 505, 73 S.W.2d 525; Lanford v. Smith, 128 Tex. 373, 99 S.W.2d 593. I note a few cases by Courts of Civil Appeals. Opposing parties in the main suit are necessary parties to compel a distric......
-
State Bar of Tex. v. Heard
...brought into the proceeding, is not presented. The cases of Williams v. Wray, 123 Tex. 466, 72 S.W.2d 577 (1934) and Lanford v. Smith, 128 Tex. 373, 99 S.W.2d 593 (1936), cited by respondent Heard, are distinguishable. In those cases there was a judicial function involved that affected the ......
-
Southwestern Transfer Company v. Slay
...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 (Fort Worth Tex.Civ.App., 1967, no Reversed and remanded for fur......
-
Industrial Acc. Bd. v. Parker
...been presented or considered by the trial court 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 Remanded and a new trial necessitates some further discussion of good cause for P......