Josey Miller Company v. Wilson

384 S.W.2d 231, 1964 Tex. App. LEXIS 2369
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 28, 1964
Docket14292
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 384 S.W.2d 231 (Josey Miller Company v. Wilson) 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
Josey Miller Company v. Wilson, 384 S.W.2d 231, 1964 Tex. App. LEXIS 2369 (Tex. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

POPE, Justice.

This venue action arises under Section 23, Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. Plaintiff, Jesse Wilson, Jr., a resident of Jim Wells County, brought suit in that County against Josey Miller Company, Inc., of Jefferson County, Texas. The court overruled defendant’s plea of privilege and defendant here urges that the action sued upon did not arise in Jim Wells County and, if it did, it is void under the Statute of Frauds. We affirm the judgment

Plaintiff operated several feed stores, one of which was in Jim Wells County. He asserted an oral contract made in that County, which obligated defendant to supply him feed, which he in turn sold to his customers. He alleged that defendant sent sacked feed to him in Jim Wells County, which he sold to his customers; that the feed was spoiled and adulterated and caused his customers’ livestock to become sick, as a result of which he lost business and customers, and was subjected to claims by his customers. Sec. 23, Art. 1995 states several alternative sites at which a plaintiff may bring a suit against a private corporation. One place is the county in which the cause of action or a part thereof arose.

Plaintiff had to prove that some part of the transaction creating the primary right, or some part of the transaction relating to the breach of that right, occurred in Jim Wells County. Stone Fort Nat. Bank of Nacogdoches v. Forbess, 126 Tex.

*232 568, 91 S.W.2d 674. It is our opinion that plaintiff proved defendant breached its implied warranty, and that his resale of the spoiled and adulterated feed subjected him to business losses and claims in Jim Wells County. That part of his action, at least, arose in the county of the suit. Davis v. Ferguson Seed Farms, Tex.Civ.App., 255 S.W. 655; Teague Brick Sales Co. v. Dewey, Tex.Civ.App., 355 S.W.2d 249; Brown Cracker & Candy Co. v. Jensen, Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d 227, 232; Texas Portland Cement Co. v. Carsey, Tex.Civ.App., 3 S.W.2d 930.

Defendant also insists that the contract is in violation of the Statute of Frauds. This is an affirmative defense, Rule 94, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and may properly be heard upon the trial of the case, but not in a venue hearing. Clark, Venue in Civil Actions, pp. 246-248; 1 McDonald, Texas Civil Practice, § 4.55.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Finch
512 S.W.2d 51 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Beckham Development Co. v. Bruce Clark & Associates
492 S.W.2d 287 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1973)
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Howard
474 S.W.2d 929 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Thorn v. Theo H. Blue Drilling, Inc.
472 S.W.2d 535 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Ralston Purina Company v. Wiseman
467 S.W.2d 669 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)
W. G. Tufts & Son v. Herider Farms, Inc.
461 S.W.2d 257 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Sani-Serv Freezer Sales, Inc. v. Coker
441 S.W.2d 649 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Lewis Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Carriage Park, Inc.
440 S.W.2d 342 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Hydrostatic Engineers, Inc. v. Rapid Service, Inc.
439 S.W.2d 866 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Stull Chemical Co. v. Boggs Farmers Supply, Inc.
404 S.W.2d 78 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Dealers National Insurance Company v. Rose
396 S.W.2d 535 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
384 S.W.2d 231, 1964 Tex. App. LEXIS 2369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/josey-miller-company-v-wilson-texapp-1964.