El Laredo, Inc. v. Orr

321 S.W.2d 624, 1959 Tex. App. LEXIS 1929
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 20, 1959
Docket15975
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 321 S.W.2d 624 (El Laredo, Inc. v. Orr) 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
El Laredo, Inc. v. Orr, 321 S.W.2d 624, 1959 Tex. App. LEXIS 1929 (Tex. Ct. App. 1959).

Opinion

RENFRO, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order which overruled a plea of privilege.

Plaintiff’s controverting affidavit sought to maintain venue in Tarrant County, under the provisions of Art. 1995, Sub. 23, Vernons’ Ann.Civ.St., and alleged a written contract executed in Tarrant County.

Suit was for the value of professional services rendered by plaintiff to defendant.

The record shows defendant was a corporation. The contract between plaintiff and defendant was executed in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas. At least seventy-five per cent of the work done by plaintiff under the contract was performed in Tarrant County.

Subdivision 23 provides, in part, that suit may be brought against a corporation in the county in which the cause of action or part thereof arose.

Within the meaning of said subdivision a cause of action against a private corporation for the breach of a contract consists of the contract itself and its breach; hence suit may be maintained in the county where the contract was made, or where it was breached. The requirement that a part of the cause of action shall have arisen in the county where the suit was brought is met by proof that the contract was made in that county. Gleason v. Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co., Tex.Civ.App., 214 S.W.2d 640; Early-Foster Co. v. A. P. Moore’s Sons, Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W. 787; Ohio Oil Co. v. Varner, Tex.Civ.App., 150 S.W.2d 185; Ed Friedrich Sales Corp. v. Deitrick, Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 760; Panther Oil & Grease Mfg. Co. v. Schumaker, Tex.Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 205; Highway Ins. Underwriters v. Pyeatt, Tex.Civ.App., 234 S.W.2d 457.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Pool Co. v. Hydra-Rig, Inc.
626 S.W.2d 320 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Delhi Gas Pipeline Corporation v. Allgood
492 S.W.2d 651 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1973)
G. & M. Products Corp. v. Clayton Specialties, Inc.
386 S.W.2d 843 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Mid-West Oil Corp. v. Eisner
341 S.W.2d 185 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
321 S.W.2d 624, 1959 Tex. App. LEXIS 1929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/el-laredo-inc-v-orr-texapp-1959.