Langdeau v. Burke Inv. Co.
| Citation | 163 Tex. 526,358 S.W.2d 553 |
| Decision Date | 20 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | Nos. A-8813-8810-8812,s. A-8813-8810-8812 |
| Parties | C. H. LANGDEAU, Receiver of Franklin American Ins. Co., Petitioner, v. BURKE INVESTMENT COMPANY, Respondent. C. H. LANGDEAU, Receiver of Franklin American Ins. Co., Petitioner, v. HIGHLAND HILLS, INC., Respondent. C. H. LANGDEAU, Receiver of Franklin American Ins. Co., Petitioner, v. E. J. BURKE, Jr., Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
Cecil C. Rotsch, Horace Wimberly, Kerns B. Taylor and Harold G. Kennedy, Austin, for petitioner.
John Peace, San Antonio, for respondent.
The San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals has held that the venue of an action in trespass to try title against the receiver of an insurance company is governed by Exception 14 of Article 1995, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.Stat., rather than by Section 4(f) of Article 21.28, V.A.T.S. Insurance Code. 1 351 S.W.2d 287. We have jurisdiction under Subdivision 2 of Article 1728, because such holding is in conflict with the decision of the Austin Court of Civil Appeals in Bennett v. Langdeau, 348 S.W.2d 179.
It is well settled that Exception 14 2 is mandatory where the privilege is properly claimed by any party to a suit which falls within its terms. South Texas Development Co. v. Williams, 130 Tex. 217, 107 S.W.2d 378; Pena v. Sling, 135 Tex. 200, 140 S.W.2d 441, 128 A.L.R. 1223; Thomson v. Locke, 66 Tex. 383, 1 S.W. 112. The purport of the words used by the Legislature in Section 4(f) 3 is quite different. It does not provide that the actions mentioned therein shall or must be brought in the county where the receivership is pending. Venue to hear and determine the proceedings is conferred upon the courts of that county, but there is nothing to suggest that the lawmakers intended for such courts to have exclusive venue of all suits by or against the receiver. Exception 28a, 4 which contains language of similar import, has been held to be permissive and not mandatory. Mutual Fire & Automobile Ins. Co. v. Kirkman, Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 459 (no writ). As pointed out by the court in that case, a declaration that 'venue shall lie' in a certain county is not equivalent to a command that the suit 'must be brought' in that county. It merely signifies an intention to give the plaintiff the legal right, if he chooses, to maintain such a suit there. This, it seems to us, is the meaning which should be attributed to the provisions of Section 4(f).
Petitioner contends that Section 4(f) is mandatory and exclusive in effect even though couched in language which would generally be regarded as permissive. He says that in the absence of statutory authorization, leave of the appointing court must be obtained before a receiver may sue or be sued in any other court. Under the provisions of Article 2310, an ordinary receiver may sue or be sued in any court having jurisdiction of the cause of action without leave of the appointing court, and Article 2311 deals with the venue of actions against such receivers. Section 4(e) provides that these two statutes shall not apply to insolvent insurance companies being administered under Article 21.28 of the Insurance Code. Petitioner argues that it is only by virtue of Articles 2310 and 2311 that the general venue statute ever applied to receivers. Since they have no efficacy in the present case and consent of the appointing court has not been obtained, petitioner reasons that the action cannot properly be maintained in Bexar County, that Exception 14 has no application, and that venue is necessarily controlled by Section 4(f). We do not agree.
The necessity for obtaining leave of the appointing court before maintaining an action in another court and the proper court in which to institute the suit under our statutes relating to venue are separate problems which are dealt with separately by Articles 2310 and 2311. The absence of express statutory authority for the prosecution of suits by or against receivers of insurance companies without the consent of the receivership court does not indicate that Section 4(f) is intended to be exclusive. It does not give a plaintiff the freedom of choice allowed by Article 2311, but we think the Legislature has simply laid down a different permissive venue rule for actions involving an insurance company receiver.
There is no conflict between the mandatory provisions of Exception 14 and the permissive terms of Section 4(f), and Section 16 5 does not require that the former yield to the latter in a case like the present. Petitioner also directs our attention to Exception 30. 6 While that subdivision is expressed in mandatory terms, it does not convert a merely permissive venue provision, wherever it may be found, into a mandatory prescription. McDonald, Texas Civil Practice, Vol. 1, § 4.37, p. 420. A permissive statute applicable to actions of a particular kind must always yield to a mandatory provision of Article 1995. See Mitchell v. Porter, Tex.Civ.App., 194 S.W. 981 (reversed on other grounds, Com.App., 223 S.W. 197). We agree with the Court of Civil Appeals that Exception 14 governs the venue of an action which falls within its terms even though the suit is brought by or against the receiver of an insurance company.
By his fourth point of error, petitioner says that even if Exception 14 is applicable to actions against an insurance company receiver, his pleas of privilege should have been sustained because the present suits are mere subterfuges. An additional statement is necessary. On June 17, 1960, petitioner instituted suit against respondents and others in the 126th District Court of Travis County, seeking to set aside certain releases, notes, deeds and deeds of trust affecting the title to two tracts of land in Bexar County and to foreclose a deed of trust lien thereon. Respondents filed pleas of privilege which were overruled by the trial court. It was this ruling which was appealed to and affirmed by the Austin Court of Civil Appeals in Bennett v. Langdeau, supra.
About three months after such action was instituted in Travis County, respondents as plaintiffs filed the present suits in Bexar County. Each...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercantile National Bank At Dallas v. Langdeau Republic National Bank of Dallas v. Langdeau, s. 14
...disagreement about them in argument before this Court, we are aware of the recent ruling of the Texas Supreme Court, Langdeau v. Burke Investment Co., Tex., 358 S.W.2d 553, holding Texas Insurance Code, Art. 21.28(4), permissive, not mandatory, thus not restricting the receiver to suits in ......
-
Dempsey-Tegeler & Co. v. Flowers
...subdivision, although expressed in mandatory terms, must yield to the other provisions of Article 1995. Langdeau v. Burke Investment Company, 163 Tex. 526, 358 S.W.2d 553, 556 (1962). As is said in 1 McDonald, Texas Civil Practice, (1965 Rev.Ed.) § 4.37, at p. 557, in discussing Subdivision......
-
Wichita County, Tex. v. Hart
...motion to transfer based on a mandatory venue provision, the trial court must grant the motion. See Langdeau v. Burke Inv. Co., 163 Tex. 526, 358 S.W.2d 553, 556 (1962). A trial court's erroneous denial of a motion to transfer venue requires reversal of the judgment and remand for a new tri......
-
Perryman v. Spart an Tex. Six Capital Partners, Ltd., 16–0804
...a permissive venue statute apply to a suit, the permissive statute must yield to the mandatory statute. See Langdeau v. Burke Inv. Co. , 163 Tex. 526, 358 S.W.2d 553, 556 (1962). A trial court's erroneous denial of a motion to transfer venue requires the judgment's reversal and a remand for......