Cox v. Palacios

188 S.W.2d 688, 1945 Tex. App. LEXIS 510
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 13, 1945
DocketNo. 11521.
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 188 S.W.2d 688 (Cox v. Palacios) 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
Cox v. Palacios, 188 S.W.2d 688, 1945 Tex. App. LEXIS 510 (Tex. Ct. App. 1945).

Opinion

*689 NORVELL, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a plea of privilege. The plea was properly overruled under the provisions of exception 14 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. The opinion of this Court in the recent case of Cox et al. v. Chapa, Tex.Civ.App., 188 S.W.2d 217, is controlling here. The allegations of Pala-cios’ petition with reference to damages to land are practically identical with those contained in the petition in the Chapa case. Under exception 14, the venue fact which must be established by evidence is that the land is situated in the county where the suit is brought. That was done in this case. Whether or not a suit is one for the “recovery of lands or damages thereto” is a matter to be determined by allegations of the petition. The venue inquiry under exception 14 is restricted to the nature or character of the suit, and is not directed to the question of whether or not a cause of action exists in fact. In this particular, exception 14 differs from certain other exceptions set out in Article 1995. In order to maintain venue in Duval County, Pala-cios was not called upon to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had in fact suffered an injury to his land. He alleged that he did and his right to maintain the suit in the county where the land is situated was not defeated by his failure to prove upon the plea of privilege hearing that his land had in fact been damaged.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

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

Related

Getty Oil Co. v. Corbin
653 S.W.2d 342 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1983)
State Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Herman
578 S.W.2d 442 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Kendall Corp. v. Ruthstrom
467 S.W.2d 491 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Gulf Plains Grain & Elevator Co. v. Flynn
430 S.W.2d 526 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Best Investment Company v. Parkhill
429 S.W.2d 531 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Oehler v. Irick
428 S.W.2d 882 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Lone Star Producing Company v. Bird
406 S.W.2d 344 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Sammons v. Manning
400 S.W.2d 787 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Olson v. B. W. Merchandise, Inc.
388 S.W.2d 737 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Wynne v. Freiley
349 S.W.2d 734 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1961)
Wheeler v. Peterson
331 S.W.2d 81 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1959)
Andretta v. West
318 S.W.2d 768 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1958)
Alston v. Harmon
261 S.W.2d 199 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1953)
Lake v. Reid
252 S.W.2d 978 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1952)
Stephenville Production Credit Ass'n v. Rockwell
250 S.W.2d 476 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1952)
Ward & McCullough v. Mobley
250 S.W.2d 948 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1952)
Case-Pomeroy Oil Corp. v. Pure Oil Co.
245 S.W.2d 763 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1952)
Hearn v. Frazier
228 S.W.2d 582 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1950)
Allison v. Yarborough
228 S.W.2d 930 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1950)
Ross v. Martin
225 S.W.2d 220 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 S.W.2d 688, 1945 Tex. App. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-palacios-texapp-1945.