Rogers v. Waters

Court of Appeals of Texas

Rogers v. Waters

262 S.W.2d 521, 1953 Tex. App. LEXIS 2068

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 4, 1953

Docket12583

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 262 S.W.2d 521 (Rogers v. Waters) 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

Rogers v. Waters, 262 S.W.2d 521, 1953 Tex. App. LEXIS 2068 (Tex. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

POPE, Justice.

This is a venue suit which concerns Section 5 of article 1995, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. Stats. Dr. Earl H. Waters resides in Nueces County. S. J. Rogers and N. Jay Rogers, d/b/a Texas State Optical Company, reside in Jefferson County, Texas. Dr. Waters filed suit against the appellants to obtain a declaratory judgment with reference to a contract between the parties. Under the contract, appellants agreed to hire Dr. Waters as co-manager and optometrist at the office of the Texas State Optical Company at Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas, for a period of ten years, and to pay him a salary of eight thousand dollars per year, together with one-sixth of the net profits of the Corpus Christi office. Venue under Section 5 is not controlled by the place where the contract requires the plaintiff to perform, but by the place where the contractual obligation sued upon requires the defendant to perform. Rorschach v. Pitts, Tex.Sup., 248 S.W.2d 120; Slagle v. Clark, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 430; Johnston v. Bracht, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 364; Timlin v. Odstrcil, Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W.2d 224; Harris & Beeman v. Koon, Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W.2d 212; 1 McDonald, § 4.11, pp. 344, 348.

The contract in this case is silent as regards the place the appellants are to perform, and the history of Section 5 shows that the addition of the word “expressly” to the statute, in stating the requirements for fixing venue, was meant to exclude all implications. “By amendment the language of the subdivision was made so plain as to admit of no construction that would fix venue by implication.” Saigh v. Monteith, 147 Tex. 341, 215 S.W.2d 610, 611; Johnston v. Personius, Tex.Civ.App., 242 S.W.2d 471; Slagle v. Clark, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 430; McKinney v. Moon, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 217; Cox v. Bunn, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 101.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is ordered transferred to Jefferson Cqunty.

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

POPE, Justice.

This is a venue suit which concerns Section 5 of article 1995, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. Stats. Dr. Earl H. Waters resides in Nueces County. S. J. Rogers and N. Jay Rogers, d/b/a Texas State Optical Company, reside in Jefferson County, Texas. Dr. Waters filed suit against the appellants to obtain a declaratory judgment with reference to a contract between the parties. Under the contract, appellants agreed to hire Dr. Waters as co-manager and optometrist at the office of the Texas State Optical Company at Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas, for a period of ten years, and to pay him a salary of eight thousand dollars per year, together with one-sixth of the net profits of the Corpus Christi office. Venue under Section 5 is not controlled by the place where the contract requires the plaintiff to perform, but by the place where the contractual obligation sued upon requires the defendant to perform. Rorschach v. Pitts, Tex.Sup., 248 S.W.2d 120; Slagle v. Clark, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 430; Johnston v. Bracht, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 364; Timlin v. Odstrcil, Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W.2d 224; Harris & Beeman v. Koon, Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W.2d 212; 1 McDonald, § 4.11, pp. 344, 348.

The contract in this case is silent as regards the place the appellants are to perform, and the history of Section 5 shows that the addition of the word “expressly” to the statute, in stating the requirements for fixing venue, was meant to exclude all implications. “By amendment the language of the subdivision was made so plain as to admit of no construction that would fix venue by implication.” Saigh v. Monteith, 147 Tex. 341, 215 S.W.2d 610, 611; Johnston v. Personius, Tex.Civ.App., 242 S.W.2d 471; Slagle v. Clark, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 430; McKinney v. Moon, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 217; Cox v. Bunn, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 101.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is ordered transferred to Jefferson Cqunty.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 S.W.2d 521, 1953 Tex. App. LEXIS 2068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-waters-texapp-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack