Sims v. Trinity Farm Const. Co., 922.
Decision Date | 08 May 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 922.,922. |
Citation | 28 S.W.2d 856 |
Parties | SIMS v. TRINITY FARM CONST. CO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Henderson County Court; A. B. Coker, Judge.
Action by W. W. Sims, guardian of the person and estate of Rupert Sims, a minor, against the Trinity Farm Construction Company, a partnership composed of T. H. Harbin and others. From a judgment sustaining defendant's plea of privilege, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
Bishop & Holland, of Athens, and John H. Sharp, of Austin, for appellant.
Walter S. Jones, of Ennis, and Will Hancock and Farrar & Wilson, all of Waxahachie, for appellee.
This is an appeal by W. W. Sims, in his capacity as guardian of the person and estate of Rupert Sims, a minor, from a judgment sustaining a plea of privilege to be sued herein in Ellis county, interposed by appellee, Trinity Farm Construction Company, a partnership composed of T. H. Harbin, C. H. Clark, and E. P. Harwell.
Appellant sued appellees in the county court of Henderson county, alleging that his said ward was the owner of certain real estate situated in Henderson county, Tex., and on the J. M. Alpando survey; that a five-room dwelling house, the property of his ward, was situated thereon; that appellees were engaged in building a levee and clearing and burning off the right of way therefor; that appellees negligently permitted fire to escape and burn across a tract of woodland and pasture to said residence, and that the same was consumed thereby. Appellant then alleged in detail the acts of negligence relied on, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the damage to said property. Appellees filed plea of privilege in statutory form. Appellant's controverting affidavit contained the following allegations of fact:
Appellant testified on the hearing of the issues raised by said plea and controverting affidavit as follows:
The court sustained the plea of privilege and ordered the cause transferred to Ellis county for trial.
Opinion.Appellant contends that his petition and controverting affidavit, together with the testimony submitted thereunder, were sufficient to sustain the venue of this suit in Henderson county under subdivision 14 of article 1995 of our Revised Statutes, which provides that suits for damages to lands must be brought in the county where such lands are situated. Article 2007, Revised Statutes, makes a plea of privilege complying with its provisions prima facie proof of the defendant's right to a change of venue unless the plaintiff shall "file a controverting plea under oath, setting out specifically the fact or facts relied upon to confer venue of such cause on the court where the cause is pending." (Italics ours.) The character of appellant's cause of action must be determined from the averments of his petition. We quote from Koch v. Roedenbeck (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 328, as follows: "On questions of venue the character of an action is determinable solely by the allegations contained in the petition, and is a question of law to be determined by the court, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gilbert v. Gilbert
...Car Co. v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 861, mandamus denied Jones v. Hickman, 121 Tex. 405, 48 S.W.2d 982; Sims v. Trinity Farm Construction Co., Tex.Civ.App., 28 S.W.2d 856; Highway Motor Freight Line v. Slaughter, Tex.Civ.App., 84 S.W.2d City of Corpus Christi v. Live Oak County, Tex.C......
-
Rogers v. Fort Worth Poultry & Egg Co.
...of ownership of the land by plaintiffs were made. Such cases are not applicable here. He also cites Sims v. Trinity Farm Construction Co., Tex.Civ.App., 28 S.W.2d 856, 857, to support his contention that the allegations and proof were sufficient to constitute this an action for damages to l......
-
Phillips v. Piazza, 6702
...to the land which prima facie shows that it was incurred through the acts of defendant, or by his authority, are: Sims v. Trinity Farm Construction Co., 28 S.W.2d 856; Fordyce Gravel Co. v. Springs, 79 S.W.2d 1111; Talco Asphalt & Refining Co. v. McCann, supra; Hoover v. Horton, 209 S.W.2d ......
-
Stephenville Production Credit Ass'n v. Rockwell
...& N. T. Ry. Co., 23 Tex.Civ.App. 706, 58 S.W. 183; Knight v. Houston & T. C. R. Co., 93 Tex. 417, 55 S.W. 558; Sims v. Trinity Farm Construction Co., Tex.Civ.App., 28 S.W.2d 856. It thus appears that the venue facts required for compliance with subdivision 14 have been proved. The nature of......