Martin v. McKenzie

Court of Appeals of Texas

Martin v. McKenzie

242 S.W.2d 960, 1951 Tex. App. LEXIS 1685

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 10, 1951

Docket12341

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 242 S.W.2d 960 (Martin v. McKenzie) 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

Martin v. McKenzie, 242 S.W.2d 960, 1951 Tex. App. LEXIS 1685 (Tex. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

W. O. MURRAY, Chief Justice. .

This is an appeal from an order overruling a plea of privilege filed by J. W. Martin, Jr., and Ray Martin to be sued in La Salle ■ County, Texas, the county of their residence.

Appellees attempt to assert venue in Bexar County' under Subdivision 5 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Civ.Stats.. The suit was for a real estate commission on land located in La Salle County. The contract was in writing and is in' evidence. It does not expressly provide that such real estate commission is payable in Bexar County, Texas, therefore venue can not be maintained in Bexar County under Subdivision 5 of Article 1995, supra. This subdivision was amended in 1935, and since that amendment our courts have held numerous times that before venue can be maintained in a county other than that of the defendant’s residence under this provision of the venue statute, a written contract must be shown which provides that the obligation sued upon is performable in the county of suit, expressly naming the county or a definite place in the county. Ammann v. Daniel Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 220 S.W.2d 181; McKinney v. Moon, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 217; Cox v. Bunn, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 101; Smith v. Hall, 147 Tex. 634, 219 S.W.2d 441; Saigh v. Monteith, 147 Tex. 341, 215 S.W.2d 610; Laughlin v. Nordyke, Tex.Civ.App., 215 S.W.2d 424; Southwestern Peanut Growers Ass’n v. Kendrick, Tex.Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 1019; Kendrick v. Mackey, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W.2d 394; Wrenn v. Brooks, Tex.Civ.App., 257 S.W. 299; Colman v. H. Dittlinger Roller Mills, Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 604; Rio Grande Valley Citrus Exchange v. Leche & Leche, Tex.Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 1015; Johnson v. Personius, Tex.Civ.App., 242 S.W.2d 471.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and judgment here rendered transferring this cause to the District Court of La Salle County, in the manner provided by Rule 89, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. "

Reversed and rendered.

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

W. O. MURRAY, Chief Justice. .

This is an appeal from an order overruling a plea of privilege filed by J. W. Martin, Jr., and Ray Martin to be sued in La Salle ■ County, Texas, the county of their residence.

Appellees attempt to assert venue in Bexar County' under Subdivision 5 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Civ.Stats.. The suit was for a real estate commission on land located in La Salle County. The contract was in writing and is in' evidence. It does not expressly provide that such real estate commission is payable in Bexar County, Texas, therefore venue can not be maintained in Bexar County under Subdivision 5 of Article 1995, supra. This subdivision was amended in 1935, and since that amendment our courts have held numerous times that before venue can be maintained in a county other than that of the defendant’s residence under this provision of the venue statute, a written contract must be shown which provides that the obligation sued upon is performable in the county of suit, expressly naming the county or a definite place in the county. Ammann v. Daniel Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 220 S.W.2d 181; McKinney v. Moon, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 217; Cox v. Bunn, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 101; Smith v. Hall, 147 Tex. 634, 219 S.W.2d 441; Saigh v. Monteith, 147 Tex. 341, 215 S.W.2d 610; Laughlin v. Nordyke, Tex.Civ.App., 215 S.W.2d 424; Southwestern Peanut Growers Ass’n v. Kendrick, Tex.Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 1019; Kendrick v. Mackey, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W.2d 394; Wrenn v. Brooks, Tex.Civ.App., 257 S.W. 299; Colman v. H. Dittlinger Roller Mills, Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 604; Rio Grande Valley Citrus Exchange v. Leche & Leche, Tex.Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 1015; Johnson v. Personius, Tex.Civ.App., 242 S.W.2d 471.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and judgment here rendered transferring this cause to the District Court of La Salle County, in the manner provided by Rule 89, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. "

Reversed and rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 S.W.2d 960, 1951 Tex. App. LEXIS 1685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-mckenzie-texapp-1951.

Opinion

W. O. MURRAY, Chief Justice. .

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack