Gold v. McDuff

Court of Appeals of Texas

Gold v. McDuff

324 S.W.2d 229, 1959 Tex. App. LEXIS 2399

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 1, 1959

DocketNo. 16001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 324 S.W.2d 229 (Gold v. McDuff) 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

Gold v. McDuff, 324 S.W.2d 229, 1959 Tex. App. LEXIS 2399 (Tex. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

RENFRO, Justice.

On March 12, 1958, plaintiff McDuff brought suit against defendant Gold in the District Court of Cooke County to recover a balance of $44,350, allegedly due on notes originally totaling $55,000. The petition did not allege place of payment of the notes. The petition alleged: “The defendant is a resident of the State of Texas and is now conducting a portion or part of his business in Cooke County, Texas.” The defendant, on March 27, filed his plea of privilege in statutory form to be sued in Harris County, his domicile. On April 5, plaintiff’s attorney filed “Response to Defendant’s Plea of Privilege” and “upon information and belief neither admits nor denies the allegations of defendant’s Plea of Privilege, but demands strict proof thereof * * Thereafter, on April 17, plaintiff’s attorney filed a controverting affidavit, adopting the original petition, and alleged that at the time the suit was filed defendant’s residence was Cooke County. The oath to the controverting affidavit concluded, “the statements contained in the foregoing controverting plea are true and correct as he verily believes.” Defendant filed numerous exceptions to the controverting affidavit, and specially pointed out that the affidavit, being based on information and belief, was insufficient. The plaintiff did not choose to amend. The exceptions were overruled. After hearing, the court overruled the plea of privilege.

The defendant contends the controverting affidavit was insufficient to raise any question to be decided by the court.

The affidavit controverting a plea of privilege must be direct, unmistakable and unequivocal as to the facts sworn to. The allegations of fact must be on the knowledge of the affiant. The affiant must swear to the truth of his statements and not according to his knowledge and belief. 43-B Tex.Jur., p. 337, sec. 136; Savage v. Herrin Transfer & Warehouse Co., Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W.2d 101; Pinkston v. Wills, Tex.Civ.App., 200 S.W.2d 843.

The words, “he verily believes”, in the oath clearly base affiant’s oath on belief and not on knowledge of the facts alleged. The order of the trial court is reversed and the cause ordered transferred to the District Court of Harris County.

Reversed and rendered.

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

RENFRO, Justice.

On March 12, 1958, plaintiff McDuff brought suit against defendant Gold in the District Court of Cooke County to recover a balance of $44,350, allegedly due on notes originally totaling $55,000. The petition did not allege place of payment of the notes. The petition alleged: “The defendant is a resident of the State of Texas and is now conducting a portion or part of his business in Cooke County, Texas.” The defendant, on March 27, filed his plea of privilege in statutory form to be sued in Harris County, his domicile. On April 5, plaintiff’s attorney filed “Response to Defendant’s Plea of Privilege” and “upon information and belief neither admits nor denies the allegations of defendant’s Plea of Privilege, but demands strict proof thereof * * Thereafter, on April 17, plaintiff’s attorney filed a controverting affidavit, adopting the original petition, and alleged that at the time the suit was filed defendant’s residence was Cooke County. The oath to the controverting affidavit concluded, “the statements contained in the foregoing controverting plea are true and correct as he verily believes.” Defendant filed numerous exceptions to the controverting affidavit, and specially pointed out that the affidavit, being based on information and belief, was insufficient. The plaintiff did not choose to amend. The exceptions were overruled. After hearing, the court overruled the plea of privilege.

The defendant contends the controverting affidavit was insufficient to raise any question to be decided by the court.

The affidavit controverting a plea of privilege must be direct, unmistakable and unequivocal as to the facts sworn to. The allegations of fact must be on the knowledge of the affiant. The affiant must swear to the truth of his statements and not according to his knowledge and belief. 43-B Tex.Jur., p. 337, sec. 136; Savage v. Herrin Transfer & Warehouse Co., Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W.2d 101; Pinkston v. Wills, Tex.Civ.App., 200 S.W.2d 843.

The words, “he verily believes”, in the oath clearly base affiant’s oath on belief and not on knowledge of the facts alleged. The order of the trial court is reversed and the cause ordered transferred to the District Court of Harris County.

Reversed and rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 S.W.2d 229, 1959 Tex. App. LEXIS 2399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gold-v-mcduff-texapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack