Walshak v. Walshak, 302
| Decision Date | 22 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 302,302 |
| Citation | 417 S.W.2d 307 |
| Parties | Mary Lynn WALSHAK, Appellant, v. Justina WALSHAK, Appellee. . Corpus Christi |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
O. F. Jones of Guittard, Henderson, Jones & Lewis, Victoria, for appellant.
William Borchers, of Borchers & Borchers, New Braunfels, for appellee.
OPINION
This is a venue case involving Subd. 10, Art. 1995, Vernon's Ann.Tex.St.
Plaintiff-appellee's original petition, introduced in evidence, alleged plaintiff Mrs. Justina Walshak, a feme sole, to be the owner of certain cattle described in the petition; that defendant Donald J . Walshak was in possession of said cattle; and that defendant-appellant Mrs. Mary Lynn Walshak, a feme sole, was claiming ownership of an interest in the cattle. Plaintiff sought judgment against both of said defendants for the title and possession of said cattle, also prayed that the cloud on plaintiff's title caused by appellant's wrongful claim be removed, that writ of possession issue, and for general relief. The petition further alleged that a part of the cattle were located in Gonzales County. Testimony of the defendant Donald J. Walshak was that many head of the cattle were located in Gonzales County, and had been there since long prior to the time the suit was filed.
Appellant Mary Lynn Walshak filed her plea of privilege to be sued in Victoria County, where she resided. Appellee to retain venue in Gonzales County, relied in her controverting affidavit on Subd. 10, Art. 1995, V.A.T.S., as follows:
The controlling venue facts under Subd. 10, supra, are: (1) the petition must show that the suit is brought to recover personal property located in the county where the suit is filed, and (2) the plaintiff must prove that the property is located in such county; and provided the plaintiff meets such requirements, it is not necessary on the venue hearing that he prove by evidence facts constituting a cause of action for the recovery of such personal property. Langdeau v. Erwin, Tex.Civ.App., 367 S.W.2d 945, wr. dism .; Kirkland v. Kirkland, Tex.Civ.App., 324 S.W.2d 21; Hearn v. Frazier, Tex.Civ.App., 228 S.W.2d 582, writ dism.; Welch v. Scarbrough, Tex.Civ.App., 211 S.W.2d 390; Downing v. Slattery, Tex.Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 371; Congleton v. L. Mundet & Son, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 43 S.W.2d 1111,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradford v. Cole
...located in the county where the suit is filed, and (2) the plaintiff must prove that the property is located in such county. Walshak v. Walshak, 417 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1967, no writ). Bradford alleges that his agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Cole was for the purchase of a n......
-
Wilhelm v. Wilhelm
...venue of the suit for recovery of personal property can be maintained in Comanche County under subdivision 10, supra. 3 See Walshak v. Walshak, 417 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1967, no writ), which holds that the controlling venue facts under subdivision 10, supra, (1) the petit......
-
First State Bank of Childress v. Fields
...to recover personal property within the county of suit, it is necessary to look to the contentions of the plaintiff's petition. Walshak v. Walshak, 417 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1967, no writ); Allen v. Hamilton National Bank, In the case before us, the plaintiffs' petition co......
-
Allen v. Hamilton Nat. Bank
...property, and (2) that the property is located in the county of suit. Proof of a cause of action is not necessary. Walshak v. Walshak, Tex.Civ.App., 417 S.W.2d 307 and cases Appellant insists that a necessary party, the bank upon which the check is drawn, is not joined, and therefore appell......