Chadwick v. Mallard & Mallard, Inc.

603 S.W.2d 312, 1980 Tex. App. LEXIS 3845
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 17, 1980
DocketNo. 8507
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 603 S.W.2d 312 (Chadwick v. Mallard & Mallard, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chadwick v. Mallard & Mallard, Inc., 603 S.W.2d 312, 1980 Tex. App. LEXIS 3845 (Tex. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

DIES, Chief Justice.

Charles Chadwick, et ux., plaintiffs below, sued Mallard & Mallard, Inc., a resi[313]*313dent of Jefferson County, Goldrus Drilling Co., Vickers Pipe and Equipment Company, and Prudential Drilling Co. for personal injuries. All defendants except Mallard & Mallard filed pleas of privilege. Only the plea of Goldrus was sustained from which plaintiff perfects this appeal. No appeal is brought by the other defendants.

Mallard & Mallard brought cross actions for indemnity and contribution against Gol-drus, Prudential, and Vickers. Vickers sought the same relief against Mallard & Mallard, Prudential, and Goldrus. Goldrus sought the same relief against Mallard & Mallard, Prudential, and Vickers.

Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 2212a, § 2(g) (Vernon Supp.1980) provides, in part:

“All claims for contribution between named defendants in the primary suit shall be determined in the primary suit

Section 2(h) of the same article provides:

“This section prevails over Article 2212 . and all other laws to the extent of any conflict.”

In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Edwards, 512 S.W.2d 748, 753 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1974, no writ), the court wrote:

“As we interpret the provisions of Article 2212a, the legislature expressly provided a special venue in all cases where one of the named defendants files a cross claim against another named defendant for contribution. While the statute does not use the word ‘venue,’ it provides that such claims ‘shall’ be determined by the same court hearing the primary suit. The statute is phrased in mandatory language. Venue is therefore lodged in the county where the court hearing the primary suit is situated.”

Accord: Southwestern Engineering Company v. Phillips Pipe Line Company, 566 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1978, no writ). Venue of the primary suit is in Jefferson County as to all defendants, including Goldrus. We therefore reverse and render the order of the trial court.

REVERSED and RENDERED.

CLAYTON, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Reed
626 S.W.2d 184 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
603 S.W.2d 312, 1980 Tex. App. LEXIS 3845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chadwick-v-mallard-mallard-inc-texapp-1980.