Tennessee Gas & Transmission Co. v. Heard, 11530.
| Decision Date | 10 October 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 11530.,11530. |
| Citation | 190 S.W.2d 518 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | TENNESSEE GAS & TRANSMISSION CO. v. HEARD. |
Appeal from District Court, Refugio County; Howard P. Green, Judge.
Suit by Ira Heard against the Tennessee Gas & Transmission Company for damages to land and cattle. Defendant's plea of privilege was overruled, and defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Small, Arney & Small, of Austin, and Cecil C. Rotsch, of Houston, for appellant.
Tarlton & Koch, of Corpus Christi, for appellee.
Ira Heard instituted this suit in the District Court of Refugio County against Tennessee Gas and Transmission Company, seeking to recover the sum of $200 as damages to land situated in Refugio County and the sum of $2700 as damages to his cattle. The defendant filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Harris County, the county of its residence. Plaintiff filed a controverting affidavit, the third paragraph of which reads as follows:
The trial court overruled the plea of privilege and Tennessee Gas and Transmission Company has prosecuted this appeal.
Appellant's first contention is that appellee's controverting plea did not allege sufficient facts showing that this case comes within one of the exceptions to the general rule of venue, as provided in Art. 1995, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats. We overrule this contention. The controverting plea contained all of the allegations necessary to bring it within Subdivision 14 of said Art. 1995.
Subdivision 14 reads, in part, as follows:
"Lands.—Suits for the recovery of lands or damages thereto, * * * must be brought in the county in which the land, or a part thereof, may lie."
Thus we see that all that is required to bring a suit under the provisions of this subdivision, is that the nature of the suit be one for the recovery of damages to land, and that the land be located in the county of suit. The controverting plea did allege that the nature of the suit was one for the recovery of damages to land situated in Refugio County. That was all that was required.
In 43 Tex.Jur. p. 862, § 119, it is stated:
"Under subdivision 14 of R.S. art. 1995 (see § 28) there appear to be two conditions upon which venue in a county other than that of the residence of the defendant depends: (1) that the suit is one concerning land, and (2) that the land is in the county in which the suit is filed. * * *"
Appellant next contends that the proof was insufficient to establish the venue facts necessary to bring this case under the provisions of said subdivision 14. We overrule this contention. The court will determine the nature of the suit, as a matter of law, merely by a reference to the petition in the case, and the proof clearly shows that the land was situated in Refugio County. 43 Tex.Jur. p. 846, Sec. 110; Cox v. Chapa, Tex.Civ.App., 188 S.W.2d 217; Cox v. Palacios, Tex.Civ. App., 188 S.W.2d 688.
The judgment is affirmed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant complains because we did not discuss and give our reasons for not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galindo v. Garcia
...the disposition of this appeal and this matter is determined by the allegations of the amended petition. Tennessee Gas & Transmission Co. v. Heard, Tex.Civ. App., 190 S.W.2d 518. The appellant alleges that her father, Daniel Garcia, died intestate in Brooks County on July 27, 1944, leaving ......
-
Holmes v. Jackson
...Cox et al. v. Chapa, Tex.Civ.App., 188 S.W.2d 217; Cox et al. v. Palacios, Tex.Civ.App., 188 S.W.2d 688; Tennessee Gas & Transmission Co. v. Heard, Tex.Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 518. So, this case being a direct attack upon a judgment rendered by the court for the purpose of vacating a part of s......
-
Gilbert v. Gilbert
...evidence of the nature of the action.'" This rule is well-established by the decisions of this State: Tennessee Gas & Transmission Co. v. Heard, Tex.Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 518; Oakland Motor Car Co. v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 861, mandamus denied Jones v. Hickman, 121 Tex. 405, 48 S.W.......
-
Scott v. Whittaker Pipeline Constructors, Inc.
...by reference to the petition 'whether such petition is adopted as a part of the controverting affidavit or not.' Tennessee Gas and Transmission Co. v. Heard, 190 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1945, no writ). The only issue of fact to be determined upon the hearing of the plea of......