Texas Securities Corp. v. Peters
Decision Date | 29 January 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 17167,17167 |
Parties | TEXAS SECURITIES CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Shirley W. PETERS, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Dobbins, Howard & Harris and William P. Dobbins, San Antonio, for appellant.
McEntire & Murad and Rex McEntire, Fort Worth, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order overruling a plea of privilege filed by appellant, Texas Securities Corporation.
The trial judge did not file findings of fact and conclusions of law in the case. The order appealed from simply recites the overruling of the defendant's plea of privilege without giving any reasons for such action. The record in the case does not elsewhere indicate the trial court's reasons for making the ruling complained of.
The plaintiff's petition named the City of Bedford, which is not a party to this appeal, and the appellant, Texas Securities Corporation, as defendants. The record presented to us (the transcript on this appeal) shows that on August 29, 1969, attorney George W. Boring filed an answer for both defendants which consisted solely of a general denial.
The transcript also shows that on September 3, 1969, attorneys Dobbins, Howard and Harris filed a plea of privilege in behalf of appellant, Texas Securities Corporation, and subject thereto, filed another general denial in appellant's behalf.
The plaintiff, Shirley Peters, who is the appellee here, filed a controverting affidavit to such plea of privilege. A hearing was then held on this venue question. At such hearing the record shows that appearances were made in behalf of the appellant here by attorney George W. Boring, and also by attorney William P. Dobbins.
When this matter was argued on appeal before this court Mr. William P. Dobbins argued in behalf of appellant and attorney George W. Boring was present in the courtroom during the entire argument of this appeal.
The law is settled in Texas to the effect that where a defendant makes a general appearance in a case by filing an answer to the merits, any plea of privilege that he might thereafter file in the case is waived as a matter of law. See Chapa, Admrx. v. Cox, 271 S.W.2d 486 ( ); Ware v. Texboro Cabinet Corporation, 350 S.W.2d 47 (Texarkana, Tex.Civ.App., 1961, writ dism.); Reed v. Garlington, 233 S.W.2d 185 ( ); Corsby v. Heldt Bros. Trucks, 394 S .W.2d 235 (San Antonio, Tex.Civ.App., 1965, no writ hist.); Houston Pipeline Company v. Ybanez, 368 S.W.2d 140 ( ); Leyendecker v. Harlow, 189 S.W.2d 706 (Galveston, Tex.Civ.App., 1945, ref., w.m.); Wolf v. Willingham, 48 Tex.Civ.App. 536, 107 S.W. 60 ( ); Guillot v. Godchaux, 73 S.W.2d 924 ( ); and Foster v. H. O. Wooten Grocer Company, 273 S.W.2d 461 ( ).
It is still the law in Texas that a plea of privilege has to be filed in due order and venue can be waived by a failure to file such plea in due order. Crosby v. Heldt Bros. Trucks, supra, and Dyer v. Metallic Building Company, 405 S.W.2d 119 ( ).
At the hearing of the plea of privilege no evidence was offered by either party tending to show that the appellant here had filed a general denial and had thus entered a general appearance in this case several days before it filed the plea of privilege that is being considered here. These facts clearly appear, however, in the transcript on file in this case in this court in connection with this appeal.
The law is that an appellate court will take judicial notice of the entire record of a pending case as it appears in the transcript thereof. Lopez v. Mexico-Texas Petroline & Asphalt Co., 281 S.W. 326 ( ) and Rosenthal v . Groves, 387 S.W.2d 920 ( ).
The following is from 23 T.J.2d 46, Sec. 26:
In support of the quoted text see: American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Bradley, 70 S.W.2d 645 (Amarillo, Tex.Civ.App., 1934, writ dism.); Humphreys v. Young, 293 S.W. 655 ( ); Waggoner v. Edwards, 68 S.W.2d 655 ( ); Eggenberger v. Brandenberger, 74 Tex. 274, 11 S.W. 1099 (1889); Major v. Loy, 155 S.W.2d 617 ( ); Cowan v. State, 356 S.W.2d 170 (Austin, Tex.Civ.App., 1962, writ dism.); and Liberty Life Ins. Co. v. Moore, 10 S.W.2d 178 (Amarillo, Tex.Civ.App., 1928, writ dism.).
A judge of a district court can take judicial notice of the records of such court and of facts shown by the court records of the case on trial. Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Rhodabarger, 109 S.W.2d 1119 (El Paso, Tex.Civ.App., 1937, writ dism.); Andrews v. Hedrick Sav. Bank of Hedrick, Iowa, 103 S.W.2d 838 ( ); Hobbs v. Boyd, 292 S.W. 947 ( ); Bickle v. City of Panhandle, 43 S.W.2d 640 (Amarillo, Tex.Civ.App., 1931, writ ref.); Cochran County v. Boyd, 26 S.W.2d 364 (Amarillo, Tex.Civ.App., 1930, writ ref.).
A trial court judicially knows what has previously taken place in the case on trial. Universal Credit Co. v. Vance, 117 S.W.2d 508 (El Paso, Tex.Civ.App., 1938, writ dism.).
A party is not required to prove facts that a court is authorized to take judicial notice of. Doppke v. American Bank and Trust Company, 402 S.W.2d 317 (Houston, Tex.Civ.App., 1966, ref., n.r.e.); Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Kimbrell, 160 Tex. 542, 334 S.W .2d 283 (1960); and Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Peaster, 178 S.W.2d 302 ( ).
'* * * if a fact is judicially noticed, it need not be pleaded or proved.' 23 T.J.2d 27, Sec. 10; Andrews v. Hedrick Sav. Bank of Hedrick, Iowa, supra; Olivares v. Garcia, 127 Tex. 112, 91 S.W.2d 1059 (Tex.Com.App., 1936); Ferguson v. Commissioners Court of Sabine County, 230 S.W.2d 303 ( ); Levlon v. Dallas Ry. & Terminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vahlsing, Inc. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
...This is true even though the trial court was not asked to do so and did not formally announce that it had done so. Texas Securities Corporation v. Peters, 463 S.W.2d 263 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1971, no writ); Buckaloo Trucking Company v. Johnson, 409 S.W.2d 911 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi ......
-
Messina v. State, 05-91-00847-CR
...669, 674 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1978, no writ) (events that have previously taken place in the case on trial); Texas Sec. Corp. v. Peters, 463 S.W.2d 263, 265 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1971, no writ) (records of the district court and facts shown by court records of case on trial); B......
-
Marshall v. Telecommunications Specialists, Inc.
...notice of pleadings in a case. Johnson v. Coca-Cola Co., 727 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Texas Sec. Corp. v. Peters, 463 S.W.2d 263, 265 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1971, no writ). The pleadings themselves are not evidence, but a stipulation of the parties that......
-
Maixner v. Maixner
...done so. Vahlsing, Inc. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 563 S.W.2d 669, 674 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1978, no writ); Texas Securities Corp. v. Peters, 463 S.W.2d 263, 265 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1971, no writ). The change of age of the child, when taken together with other circumstances sho......