Limpia Royalties v. Cowden, 3362.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 3362.,3362. |
| Citation | 94 S.W.2d 481 |
| Parties | LIMPIA ROYALTIES et al. v. COWDEN et ux. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Midland County; Chas. L. Klapproth, Judge.
Suit by Edd Cowden and wife against the Limpia Royalties, a trust estate, W. E. Templeman, N. E. Templeman, Sam F. Means, and another, individually and as trustees of such estate, and others. From an order sustaining a plea of privilege, filed by defendant Means, as trustee, and joined in by defendants Templeman, but transferring the cause to the county in which complainants elected to prosecute it, defendants appeal.
Reversed and rendered.
W. C. Franklin, of Tulsa, Okl., Saner, Saner & Jack, of Dallas, and Frank Stubbeman, of Midland, for appellants.
Samuels, Foster, Brown & McGee, of Fort Worth, and Whitaker & Perkins, of Midland, for appellees.
On April 30, 1930, Edd Cowden and wife, Jett Cowden, executed a deed to the Limpia Royalties, a trust estate, in which they conveyed an undivided one-sixteenth interest in and to all of the oil, gas, and other minerals in 12,768 acres of land in Andrews county, Tex., 3,200 acres in Winkler county, and 3,434 acres situated in both Andrews and Winkler counties. On May 2 following they executed another deed to Limpia Royalties, conveying a one thirty-second interest in the minerals in 3,242 acres of land in Ector county, Tex.
On January 25, 1935, Cowden and wife filed this suit in Midland county, naming Limpia Royalties, W. E. Templeman, N. E. Templeman, Sam F. Means, and Cross Payton, individually and as trustees of Limpia Royalties, and Leroy R. Davis and Mary Dell Emerson, as defendants.
Appellees, after alleging the execution of the deeds aforesaid, alleged that the consideration therefor had been certain shareholder's certificates in the Limpia Royalties, and that they had been returned to said trust estate, and were at the time of the filing of suit in its possession; that they were induced to execute the deeds in question by fraudulent representations made to them by the trustees; that the contract between them and Limpia Royalties never at any time became binding or effective because the minds of the parties never met upon the subject-matter; and that the contract had been abandoned by appellants.
They then prayed for judgment canceling, annulling, and holding for naught the deeds, and that any and all right, title, and interest owned, claimed, held, or possessed by the Limpia Royalties or its trustees in the lands to be divested out of Limpia Royalties and vested in them.
Appellants W. E. and N. E. Templeman, individually and as trustees of Limpia Royalties, answered on February 22, 1935. Sam Means, the remaining trustee, filed his plea of privilege on June 4, 1935, praying that the cause be transferred to Andrews county, or in the alternative to Winkler county, or in the further alternative to Ector, or further in the alternative to El Paso county, where he resided. The Templemans then joined in the plea to the venue, setting up similar allegations to those appearing in the plea of Means.
Appellees in due time filed their controverting affidavit in which they alleged that the venue was properly laid in Midland county, where the fraudulent representations were made, that the Templemans were nonresidents of the state, against whom appellees were entitled to maintain their suit in Midland county, and that Sam F. Means, being a necessary party, could also be sued there under subdivision 29a of article 1995 (Vernon's Ann. Civ.St.); that the Templemans had waived their right to be sued elsewhere by having answered in the cause.
Appellees then prayed that the pleas be overruled, and in the alternative, in the event the court should sustain any of the pleas of privilege, that the cause be transferred to Ector county, the county elected by them in which to prosecute the cause.
When the pleas of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ridge v. Wood
...252 S.W. 878; Richardson v. Beasley, Tex. Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 420. This court had the same question before it in Limpia Royalties Co. v. Cowden, Tex. Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 481. Petitioners who seek, by an action in the nature of a bill of review, to set aside a judgment rendered at a former t......
-
Harwell v. Morris, 5303.
...296 S.W. 345; Hunt v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 275 S.W. 96; Gilmer's Estate v. Veatch, 102 Tex. 384, 117 S.W. 430; Limpia Royalties v. Cowden, Tex.Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 481. Dr. Clark voted for appellant in the election and the trial court held he was not qualified to vote. The record shows tha......