Reed v. Garlington

233 S.W.2d 185, 1950 Tex. App. LEXIS 1600
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 22, 1950
Docket2821
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 233 S.W.2d 185 (Reed v. Garlington) 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
Reed v. Garlington, 233 S.W.2d 185, 1950 Tex. App. LEXIS 1600 (Tex. Ct. App. 1950).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that it is not an appeal from an order overruling or sustaining a plea of privilege, permitted by Article 2008, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St, but merely an attempt to appeal from an order striking out appellant’s plea of privilege. The order appealed from recited that appellant had previously answered and, therefore, the plea of privilege 'had been waived and was not timely filed and that the motion to strike should 'be sustained “for such plea of privilege is without merit.”

Article 2008 provides that either party may appeal from a judgment sustaining or overruling a plea of privilege. Although the order appealed does not use the word “overruled” it had the effect of finally disposing of the plea of privilege. The effect of the order was to overrule the plea of privilege. Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary defines overruled thus: “(Law) To supersede, reject, annul or rule against.” The order of the trial court certainly rejected and ruled against appellant’s plea of privilege. Giving effect to substance rather than form, appellant’s plea of privilege was overruled because the court found he had waived the right to assert such privilege by previously answering to the merits.

In Southport Petroleum Co. v. Carter, 139 Tex. 661, 165 S.W.2d 85, the Commission of Appeals in an opinion adopted by the Supreme Court assumed that a defendant had the right to appeal from an order “dismissing” his plea of privilege after sustaining plaintiff’s exceptions thereto.

In Leyendecker v. Harlow, 189 S.W.2d 706 (R.W.M.), the trial court held a defendant had waived his right to assert a plea of privilege by filing an answer to the merits, and dismissed the plea of privilege. The Court of Civil Appeals held that such an order of dismissal was appealable and that defendant could not present such action as error on an appeal from a judgment on the merits.

In Pass v. Ray, Tex.Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 470, a plea of privilege was dismissed because the trial court held defendant had waived it. The Court of Civil Appeals held that defendant had the right to appeal from the order dismissing his plea of privilege.

The motion to dismiss 'is overruled.

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

Related

Corpening v. A. V. Corpening
615 S.W.2d 186 (Texas Supreme Court, 1981)
Thompson v. Thompson
487 S.W.2d 436 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Texas Securities Corporation v. Peters
463 S.W.2d 263 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)
City of Orange v. State ex rel. City of Port Arthur
450 S.W.2d 722 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Crosby v. Heldt Bros. Trucks
394 S.W.2d 235 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Houston Pipeline Co. v. Ybanez
368 S.W.2d 140 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1963)
Dossey v. Oehler
359 S.W.2d 624 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1962)
Foster v. HO Wooten Grocer Company
273 S.W.2d 461 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1954)
Guerra De Chapa v. Cox
271 S.W.2d 486 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1954)
Reed v. Garlington
233 S.W.2d 185 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 S.W.2d 185, 1950 Tex. App. LEXIS 1600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-garlington-texapp-1950.