Smith Bros. Grain Co. v. Windsor

255 S.W. 158
CourtTexas Commission of Appeals
DecidedOctober 31, 1923
DocketNo. 471-3851
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 255 S.W. 158 (Smith Bros. Grain Co. v. Windsor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Commission of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith Bros. Grain Co. v. Windsor, 255 S.W. 158 (Tex. Super. Ct. 1923).

Opinion

BISHOP, J.

A full statement of this case will be found in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, 242 S. W. 350. We agree with the conclusions there reached on all assignments- raised by plaintiffs in error in their petition.

In that court they assigned error on the action of the trial court,in overruling their plea of privilege to be sued in Tarrant county, it being the county of their residence.

In passing on this question, the court uses this language:

“The assignments complaining of the overruling of appellants’ plea of privilege to be sued in the county of their residence, Tarrant, cannot be sustained, for the reason that they did not prosecute their appeal from that order of the trial court before going to trial upon the merits of the cause. Chapter 176, art. 1903, General Laws of the state of Texas of the Thirty-Fifth Legislature (1917) p. 388 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, art. 1903); Hill v. Brady (Tex. Civ. App.) 231 S. W. 145."

The plea of privilege and controverting affidavit thereto having been filed, the trial court on November 5, 1919, heard and entered an order overruling said plea and continuing the cause for final hearing, to which order plaintiffs in error excepted, but did not give notice of appeal. The case was again continued at both the spring and fall terms of 1920 on the application of plaintiffs in error. The case was tried on its merits and judgment entered in the spring term, on March 31, 1921. While we have concluded that the Court of Civil Appeals correctly overruled the assignments in regard to the plea of privilege, we think the reason given therefor is erroneous and in conflict with the holding of the Supreme Court in the case of Allen v. Woodward, 111 Tex. 457, 239 S. W. 602, 22 A. L. R. 1253, wherein it is held that article 1903 Vernon’s Supp. 1918, “authorizes an appeal from the judgment sustaining or overruling a plea of privilege, but it suspends a trial, pending the termination of the appeal, only in the event the judgment appealed from is one sustaining the plea.”

When the plea is overruled, the trial court can at once proceed to trial on the merits. In event the case should be tried on its merits during the term of court at which the plea was overruled, the defendant can, by proper exception, have the ruling of the court considered on appeal from final judgment, without the necessity of perfecting a separate appeal from the order overruling his plea of privilege. However, this case was continued when the plea was overruled, and was not tried on the merits until the third term of court thereafter.

We are of opinion that plaintiffs in error should have perfected an appeal from the order overruling the plea of privilege, and, having failed to do so, they waived their right to have same considered on appeal from the judgment against them on the merits at a subsequent term of court, and we recommend that the judgment of the Court of CiviAppeals be affirmed.

CURETON, C. J.

The judgment recommended in the report of the Commission of Appeals is adopted, and will be entered as the judgment of the Supreme Court.

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

Related

Reitmeyer v. Ferris Rental Center, Inc.
635 S.W.2d 189 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Davis v. Campbell
319 S.W.2d 758 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1958)
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. State
218 S.W.2d 855 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1949)
Pinkston v. Farmers State Bank of Center
201 S.W.2d 595 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1947)
Barron v. James
198 S.W.2d 256 (Texas Supreme Court, 1946)
Barron v. James
198 S.W.2d 245 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1946)
Richburg v. Fore
190 S.W.2d 164 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1945)
Wichita Falls & Southern Railroad v. McDonald
174 S.W.2d 951 (Texas Supreme Court, 1943)
Gillette Motor Transport Co. v. Wichita Falls & Southern R.
170 S.W.2d 629 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1943)
Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co. v. Dyess
167 S.W.2d 294 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1942)
Clark v. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank of Dallas
153 S.W.2d 668 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Georgian Oil Corp. v. Chemical Process Co.
151 S.W.2d 280 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Mueller-Huber Grain Co. v. Heid Bros., Inc.
58 S.W.2d 198 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Pass v. Ray
44 S.W.2d 470 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Stone v. McCaskey Register Co.
21 S.W.2d 598 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Transit Grain & Commission Co. v. Lewis
11 S.W.2d 260 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Euchey v. Adam Schaaf, Inc.
7 S.W.2d 168 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Hewitt v. De Leon
5 S.W.2d 236 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Bradshaw v. Wolfe City
3 S.W.2d 527 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Farmersville Mill & Light Co. v. Moore
292 S.W. 555 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 S.W. 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-bros-grain-co-v-windsor-texcommnapp-1923.