Monte Oil Co. v. McFall
| Decision Date | 10 March 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 1995.,1995. |
| Citation | 114 S.W.2d 596 |
| Parties | MONTE OIL CO. et al. v. McFALL. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Limestone County Court; Lewis M. Seay, Judge.
Suit by R. E. McFall against the Monte Oil Company and others to recover for services rendered. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Meador & Meador, of Dallas, for appellants.
L. W. Shepperd, of Groesbeck, for appellee.
R. E. McFall brought suit in Limestone county against Monte Oil Company, a corporation, and A. H. Richardson, Morris Richardson, and Alfred Richardson, to recover for certain services alleged to have been rendered by plaintiff for the defendants jointly in Limestone county. The defendants all filed pleas of privilege to have the case transferred to Dallas county, the county of their residence. Upon the hearing, evidence was introduced showing that the services in question were rendered by plaintiff for the Monte Oil Company alone in Limestone county, and there was no evidence showing that any of such services were performed in said county for either of the Richardsons. The trial court overruled the pleas of privilege, and the defendants appealed.
It is appellants' contention that appellee had the burden of proving a prima facie joint cause of action against the Monte Oil Company and the Richardsons for services rendered in Limestone county before venue could be retained against the Richardsons in that county. It is conceded that, since the Monte Oil Company is a corporation and the suit was against it for services rendered for it in Limestone county, the venue, as against said corporation, was properly laid in Limestone county. R.S. art. 1995, subd. 23. The Commission of Appeals, in the case of Stockyards National Bank v. Maples, 127 Tex. 633, 95 S.W.2d 1300, held that when a resident and a nonresident defendant were sued on a joint cause of action, plaintiff need prove only a prima facie case against the resident defendant in order to retain venue as to the nonresident defendant, provided plaintiff had alleged a joint cause of action against the two defendants. In other words, it was held that if a joint cause of action was alleged against the two defendants and a cause of action was proved against the resident defendant, then the nonresident defendant's plea of privilege should be overruled, even though the evidence showed that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the nonresident defendant. We had previously thought that the burden was on the plaintiff not only to allege but to prove a joint cause of action against the two defendants, and we so held in the original opinion in Fenner & Beane v. Lincoln, Tex.Civ. App., 101 S.W.2d 305, but on motion for rehearing, our attention was called to the holding of the Supreme Court in Stockyards National Bank v. Maples, supra, and we were required to recede from such holding.
In the case at bar, the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ladner v. Reliance Corp.
...170, 166 S.W.2d 902; 140 Tex. 391, 168 S.W.2d 660; Ulmer v. Dunigan Tool & Supply Co., Tex.Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d 901; Monte Oil Co. v. McFall, Tex.Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 596; Southwestern Peanut Growers Ass'n v. Womack, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 371. See also Dunn v. Johnson, Tex.Civ.App., 274 ......
-
Scott v. Scott, 12654.
...joint cause of action—that plaintiff's allegations were determinative of that question. The Waco Court of Civil Appeals, in Monte Oil Co. v. McFall, 114 S.W.2d 596, made a pronouncement that seemingly sustains the view advanced by appellee, but, for reasons which will be stated, we are of o......
-
Ladner v. Reliance Corp.
...controverting affidavit to show that a defendant is a necessary party within the meaning of Subdivision 29a. Thus in Monte Oil Co. v. McFall, Tex.Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 596, and in, R. E. Cox Dry Goods Co. v. Kellog, Tex.Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 675, at page 680, the Waco court applied the rule c......
-
Bell v. Federal Land Bank of Houston, 10612.
...Sampson v. Gandy, Tex.Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 767; Stockyards Nat. Bank v. Maples, 127 Tex. 633, 95 S.W.2d 1300; Monte Oil Co. v. McFall, Tex.Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 596. Without further discussion the judgment will be Affirmed. PLEASANTS, C. J., absent. On Motion for Rehearing. GRAVES, Justice. ......