Langlois v. Jefferies, 13381.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 13381.,13381. |
| Citation | 95 S.W.2d 465 |
| Parties | LANGLOIS et ux. v. JEFFERIES. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; Frank P. Culver, Jr., Judge.
Suit by J. J. Langlois and wife against T. J. Jefferies. From a judgment sustaining defendant's plea of privilege, plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed, with directions.
Julien C. Hyer and A. W. Christian, both of Fort Worth, for appellants.
Wynne & Wynne, of Wills Point, for appellee.
Appellants brought suit against appellee, alleging, in substance, that they entered into a contract whereby they put up with appellee a certain sum of money for appellee to use in purchasing and selling oil leases, and appellee agreed to give appellants an undivided one-third interest in the properties and profits acquired. They specifically alleged that they did not know the description of all the properties acquired, but alleged that they did know the description of one lease situated in Winkler county, Tex., and that appellee fails and refuses to account to them for their interest in all of the properties and profits acquired. They alleged that unless restrained appellee will dispose of all the properties and place them in the hands of innocent purchasers. They further prayed for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the properties until the suit was finally disposed of.
In the prayer appellants ask for the appointment of a receiver for the properties; that appellee be enjoined from disposing of the properties until the suit is determined on its merits; that appellee be required to file in court a full and complete list of all the properties acquired by him and an itemized statement of all profits realized by him; and prayed that an accounting be had from appellee, and for a judgment and decree of the court establishing a trust in favor of appellants as to the properties acquired, and prayed for a partition of the properties according to the respective interests; and that if it be not susceptible of partition in kind, that same be ordered sold and the proceeds properly divided.
Appellee was sued as a resident citizen of Tarrant county.
Appellee filed a plea of privilege in statutory form (Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 2007), and to this appellants addressed a controverting plea in which they alleged that appellee maintained a residence in Tarrant county as well as a residence in Winkler county, and that he does not have an exclusive residence in Winkler county.
Upon a hearing, the plea of privilege was sustained and the suit ordered transferred to Winkler county. The appeal is from this order.
The trial court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, finding that appellee has and maintains one residence in Fort Worth, Tarrant county, Tex., and was at the time of the trial a resident of said county, and found the existence of the contract sued upon. The court concluded that on account of the residence of appellee in Tarrant county, appellants would be entitled as against appellee's plea of privilege to maintain the suit in Tarrant county, but that, having concluded that appellants' suit was for the recovery of an interest in lands, a part of which was in Winkler county, Tex the suit should be brought in said Winkler county.
It will be noted that appellee filed nothing but a formal plea of privilege, based upon his supposed exclusive residence in Winkler county.
The case of Funk et al. v. Walker et al. (Tex.Civ.App.) 241 S.W. 720, which originated in the district court of Tarrant county, and cases which have subsequently followed, definitely establish the rule that where a citizen maintains residences in two separate counties, he may be sued in either county. We are of the opinion that appellee's plea of privilege is not sufficient to cause a change of venue. It is uncontroverted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jefferies v. Dunklin, 7156.
...of article 1855, R. C.S.1925. We refer to the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals for a full statement of this case. Langlois v. Jefferies, 95 S.W.2d 465. In order, however, that this opinion may be reasonably complete within itself, we make the following abridged J. J. Langlois and his w......
-
Godwin v. Oliver, 5419.
...that it does exist. In my opinion, Justice Brown of the Court of Civil Appeals of the Second District expressed the law correctly when the Jefferies case was before that court, Langlois v. Jefferies, 95 S.W.2d 465, 466. He "We decline to stretch his [the defendant's] simple personal privile......