Randals v. Green

• Decision Date: 10 January 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 39.)
• Citation: 258 S.W. 528
• Parties: RANDALS v. GREEN.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

258 S.W. 528

RANDALS v. GREEN.

(No. 39.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

January 10, 1924.

Rehearing Denied February 21, 1924.

Appeal from District Court, Bosque County; I. P. Ward, Judge.

Action by W. H. Green against T. A. Randals. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Geo. P. Robertson, of Meridian, and A. R. Eidson and A. E. Nabors, both of Hamilton, for appellant.

J. P. Word and H. J. Cureton, both of Meridian, for appellee.

BARCUS, J.

Appellee filed this suit in the district court of Bosque county against appellant, alleging that appellant through fraudulent representations made by appellant to appellee in Bosque county, obtained possession of a stock of merchandise and fixtures, and fraudulently converted same to his own use and benefit in Bosque county, and by reason thereof appellee was entitled to judgment against appellant for the value of said goods. Appellee also alleged that appellant had written and had distributed in Bosque county a libelous letter, and that by reason thereof he was entitled to damages for injury to his good name.

Appellant filed his plea of privilege in statutory form, alleging his residence to be in, and asking that the cause be transferred to, Hamilton county. Appellee filed a controverting affidavit, which contained a general demurrer to appellant's plea of privilege, and alleging that the district court of Bosque county had venue by reason of the fact that defendant had, by fraudulent representations, obtained possession of plaintiff's stock of goods and converted same in Bosque county, and referred to his petition for a full statement of the facts, and asked the court to consider the allegations contained in the petition in connection with his controverting affidavit.

The plea of privilege and trial of the main case were set for the same date. The bill of exception shows that on the hearing of the plea of privilege —

"the defendant read and presented to the court his plea of privilege, and the plaintiff, after the defendant had read said plea of privilege, * * * read to the court * * * his controverting affidavit and answers to defendant's plea of privilege, and, after both of said instruments were read, the plaintiff called the court's attention to the allegations of his petition and also suggested to the court that the defendant had not alleged in his plea of privilege that the allegations of plaintiff's petition were fraudulently made, and therefore said plea of privilege should be overruled and denied. The court thereupon denied and overruled the defendant's plea of privilege and declined to sustain the same and declined and refused to transfer this cause to Hamilton county, the residence of the defendant, as shown by said plea of privilege, to which the defendant then and there in open court excepted."

At the same term of court the cause was tried, resulting in a judgment against appellant.

Appellant first assigns error because of the trial court's action in overruling his plea of privilege, and then presents a number of assignments complaining of errors which he claims the trial court committed on the trial of the cause.

Appellee objects to our considering the question raised by the plea of privilege because no separate appeal was perfected therefrom. Where a plea of privilege is overruled, and the case is tried at the same term of court, a defendant may present the question of the trial court's action of the plea of privilege, as well as its rulings in the main case, in one and the same appeal. Smith Bros. Grain Co. v. Windsor & Stanley (Tex. Com. App.) 255 S. W. 158.

Appellant contends that the controverting affidavit of appellee was not sufficient because it did not embrace within itself the allegations of fraud and conversion, but simply referred to the petition. Where the controverting affidavit refers to the plaintiff's petition and makes same a part thereof, it is sufficient. First National Bank v. Childs (Tex. Civ. App.) 231 S. W. 807; Perkins v. Texas Bank and Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. 736.

There was no testimony offered on the hearing of the plea of privilege. Article 1903 of the statutes provides that the plea of privilege when filed shall be prima facie proof of the defendant's right to change of venue, and, if the plaintiff desires to contest the plea of privilege, he is required to file a controverting affidavit, setting out specifically the fact or facts relied upon to confer venue of such cause on the court where the cause is pending, and he is required to file a controverting affidavit, setting out specifically the fact or facts relied upon to confer venue of such cause on the court where the cause is pending, and he is required to prove such fact or facts. Coalson v. Holmes, 111 Tex. 502, 240 S. W. 896; Clarke v. Taylor (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 878; Bledsoe v. Barber (Tex. Civ. App.) 220 S. W. 369; Richardson v. Cage Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 252 S. W. 747; Henry v. Henry (Tex. Com. App.) 251 S. W. 1038.

There is a well-defined difference in a venue and a jurisdiction question. Venue may be waived. Before a court can enter a judgment, the allegations in plaintiff's petition must state such facts as show that the court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and a judgment rendered on a petition which does not show affirmatively that the court has jurisdiction is a nullity. Walker Mercantile Co. v. J. R. Raney Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 154 S. W. 317; Southern Kansas Ry. Co. of Texas v. Vance (Tex. Civ. App.) 155 S. W. 696.

If a plaintiff alleges facts which on their face show the court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter, in order to defeat the jurisdiction of the court the defendant would be required to allege and prove that the allegations contained in plaintiff's petition were fraudulently made for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction.

Article 1830 of the statutes provides that no person who is an inhabitant of this state shall be sued out of the county in which he has his domicile, unless it comes within one of the special exceptions named. In a plea of privilege, the defendant is not required to either allege or prove that plaintiff's allegations are fraudulently made; he is only required to plead the county of his residence and that none of the exceptions to exclusive venue in the county of one's residence exists. The fact that the appellant in this cause did not allege in his plea of privilege that the allegations of appellee's petition were fraudulently made did not authorize the trial court to overrule same...