P. B. Broach Son v. W. L. Ellis Co.

278 S.W. 243
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 16, 1925
DocketNo. 2513.
StatusPublished

This text of 278 S.W. 243 (P. B. Broach Son v. W. L. Ellis Co.) 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
P. B. Broach Son v. W. L. Ellis Co., 278 S.W. 243 (Tex. Ct. App. 1925).

Opinion

RANDOLPH, J.

This suit was instituted in the district court of Knox county, Tex., by appellants, as plaintiffs, against appel-lees, as defendants. The defendants Ellis filed a plea of privilege to be sued in the county of Brown, the county of their residence. The trial court sustained defendants’ plea, and transferred the case to the district court of Brown county, and from this order plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

Article 1903, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, 1918 Supp., provides that, if the defendant files a plea of privilege and the plaintiff desires to controvert it, he shall file a controverting plea under oath, setting up specifically the facts or fact relied on to confer venue of such cause on the court where the cause is pending. In the absence of such controverting affidavit, the trial court has but one duty to perform, and that is to transfer the case to Brown county. Bennett v. Rose Mfg. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 226 S. W. 143; Cotton States Petroleum Co. v. Britton (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. 742; Clarke v. Taylor (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 878; Reece v. Langley (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. 509; Sinton State Bank v. Tyler Commercial College (Tex. Civ. App.) 231 S. W. 170; Payne v. Coleman (Tex. Civ. App.) 232 S. W. 537; Murphy v. Dabney (Tex. Civ. App.) 208 S. W. 981; Griffin v. Bryan (Tex. Civ. App.) 211 S. W. 296.

It is true that the trial court’s order transferring the case recites that the hearing, was had upon the plea of privilege and controverting affidavit. But this recital sheds no light upon the sufficiency of the controverting affidavit to enable us to decide whether or not the trial court erred in sustaining the plea of privilege.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

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

Related

Reece v. Langley
230 S.W. 509 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Cotton States Petroleum Co. v. Britton
230 S.W. 742 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Bennett v. Rose Mfg. Co.
226 S.W. 143 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1920)
Payne v. Coleman
232 S.W. 537 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Murphy v. Dabney
208 S.W. 981 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Griffin v. J. W. J. R. Bryan
211 S.W. 296 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Clarke v. Taylor
223 S.W. 878 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 S.W. 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/p-b-broach-son-v-w-l-ellis-co-texapp-1925.