Vaquero Drilling Co. v. Adcock, 14859
| Decision Date | 30 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 14859,14859 |
| Citation | 453 S.W.2d 908 |
| Parties | VAQUERO DRILLING COMPANY, Appellant, v. Roy ADCOCK, d/b/a Adcock Pipe and Supply, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
McDonald, Spann & Smith, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Burris & Burris, Alice, for appellee.
A venue action involving Subd. 5, Art. 1995, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. Appellee, Roy Adcock, d/b/a Adcock Pipe & Supply, filed this suit in Jim Wells County seeking to recover on a sworn account for the rental to appellant of certain oil field equipment. Appellant, Vaquero Drilling Company, a resident of Nueces County, timely filed its plea of privilege and has perfected this appeal from the action of the trial court in overruling such plea of privilege after a non-jury hearing.
To sustain venue under Subd. 5, supra, it is necessary to prove: (I) that the defendant is a party reached by the statute; (II) that the claim is based on a written contract; (III) that the contract was entered into by the defendant or by one authorized to bind him, or was assumed or ratified by him; (IV) that the contract by its terms provides for performance of the obligation sued upon in the county of suit. Covington-Compton Company, Inc. v. Medina Agriculture Products, 425 S.W.2d 694 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1968, no writ); McDonald, Texas Civil Practice, § 4.11.1; Clark, Venue in Civil Actions, Chap. 5, § 6.
The equipment was ordered by telephone from appellee; however, a delivery slip was signed by the persons receiving the equipment on behalf of appellant and such delivery slips contained a promise to pay for such equipment 'at Alice, Jim Wells County, Texas.' There is testimony that such equipment was used by appellant and some payment made on the invoices submitted by appellee.
Appellant asserts on this appeal that there is no evidence to show that the person signing for such equipment was an authorized agent of appellant, and, furthermore, that the evidence of partial payment by appellant is based entirely on hearsay.
Appellee alleged by his sworn petition that the account was based upon a written contract signed by appellant's agents, servants, or employees. Appellant filed a formal plea of privilege and, subject thereto, a general denial. There was no verified denial of the justness of the account, nor was there a verified denial of the authority of such agent to bind appellant. Rule 93, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires that such denials be verified by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N. K. Parrish, Inc. v. Navar
...contract was entered into by the defendant or one authorized to bind him; and (4) the contract provides for venue by its terms. Vaquero v. Adcock, 453 S.W.2d 908 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1970, no writ); 1 R. McDonald, Texas Civil Practice in District and County Courts, § 4.11.1 at 444 (196......
-
Williams v. Goodpasture, Inc., 9155
...(1st Dist.) 1975, no writ); Baccus v. Plains Cotton Coop. Ass'n, 515 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1974, no writ); Vaquero Drilling Co. v. Adcock, 453 S.W.2d 908 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1970, no writ); and Covington-Compton Co. v. Medina Agriculture Products, Inc., 425 S.W.2d 694 (Tex......
-
Hurst v. Rush
...him. It is noted that the statement does not make it clear whether such assumption must be in writing. That case cites Vaquero Drilling Company v. Adcock, 453 S.W.2d 908 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 1970, no writ), which cites Covington-Compton Co. v. Medina Agr. Products, 425 S.W.2d 694 (Te......
-
International Shelters, Inc. v. Pinehurst Inv. Corp.
...will prove itself unless the execution or authority is denied specifically in the plea of privilege. Vaquero Drilling Company v. Adcock, 453 S.W.2d 908 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1970); Red Fish Boat Company v. Jarvis Press, Inc., 361 S.W.2d 588 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1962); and 1 McDonald, ......