Thompson v. Trentham

17 S.W.2d 130, 1929 Tex. App. LEXIS 585
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 1, 1929
DocketNo. 7355.
StatusPublished

This text of 17 S.W.2d 130 (Thompson v. Trentham) 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
Thompson v. Trentham, 17 S.W.2d 130, 1929 Tex. App. LEXIS 585 (Tex. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

BAUGH, J.

Appeal from the order of the district court of Dallas county sustaining pleas of privilege of appellees, defendants below, to be sued in Ellis county, where four of them resided. Only one defendant resided in Dallas county. Appellant duly filed his controverting plea to their pleas of privilege, which was set down for hearing. On the hearing thereon the only evidence introduced related entirely to the places of residence of the respective defendants.

It is now well settled that, when a plea of privilege is filed, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff in his controverting plea both to allege and prove. facts supporting venue in the county in which he has filed his suit. World Co. v. Dow, 116 Tex. 116, 287 S. W. 241; Goad Motor Co. v. Yantis (Tex. Civ. App.) 4 S.W.(2d) 282; Finkelstein v. Reed & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 15 S.W.(2d) 110. And where several defendants are sued jointly, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show in such hearing that such defendants are at least jointly and severally liable. Harrison v. Amador (Tex. Civ. App.) 9 S.W.(2d) 279.

The statement of facts brought up with this record contains no proof whatever showing a cause of action maintainable in Dallas county. The plaintiff’s original petition was not sworn to, nor offered in evidence in the hearing upon the pleas of privilege, and, even if it had been, it would not in itself have been. any proof. Under such circumstances the only order the trial court could have entered was to transfer the case to the district court of Ellis county.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

World Company v. Dow
287 S.W. 241 (Texas Supreme Court, 1926)
Harrison v. Amador
9 S.W.2d 279 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Finkelstein v. M. H. Reed & Co.
15 S.W.2d 110 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Motl v. Boyd
286 S.W. 458 (Texas Supreme Court, 1926)
Goad Motor Co. v. Yantis
4 S.W.2d 282 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 S.W.2d 130, 1929 Tex. App. LEXIS 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-trentham-texapp-1929.