Western Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Childress

Court of Appeals of Texas

Western Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Childress

238 S.W. 348, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 432

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 16, 1922

DocketNo. 2501.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 238 S.W. 348 (Western Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Childress) 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

Western Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Childress, 238 S.W. 348, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 432 (Tex. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, O. J.

(after stating the facts as above). The first assignment, to wit, that the trial court erred “in hearing the contest of the plea of privilege without notice to the defendant” (appellant), is not supported by the record. What the trial court did was to sustain exception to the plea on the ground that it was insufficient in law.

[1] The second assignment is that said court erred “in not sustaining the defendant’s (appellant’s). plea of privilege.” If appellant means that -the court should have overruled the exceptions to its plea, we think the contention should be overruled; for the plea- was plainly not sufficient, in that it did not appear therefrom that “none of the exceptions to the exclusive venue in the county of one’s residence mentioned in article 1830 or article 2308 of the Revised Statutes” existed. Article 1903, Vernon’s Statutes, as amended April 2, 1917, chapter 176 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, art. 1903).

[2] The remaining assignment is that the court erred “in hearing the case on its merits and rendering judgment against the defendant” (appellant). The contention is without merit. Exceptions to the plea of privilege having been sustained, and appellant not having offered to amend same, the case stood as it would have stood’if the plea had never been filed. There was therefore, so far as anything in the record shows to the contrary, no other course for the court to pursue than to try the case on its merits, as he did. So far as the assignment presents a contention that the judgment against appellant was for any other reason unwarranted in law, it is too general to be entitled to consideration.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

WILLSON, O. J.

(after stating the facts as above). The first assignment, to wit, that the trial court erred “in hearing the contest of the plea of privilege without notice to the defendant” (appellant), is not supported by the record. What the trial court did was to sustain exception to the plea on the ground that it was insufficient in law.

[1] The second assignment is that said court erred “in not sustaining the defendant’s (appellant’s). plea of privilege.” If appellant means that -the court should have overruled the exceptions to its plea, we think the contention should be overruled; for the plea- was plainly not sufficient, in that it did not appear therefrom that “none of the exceptions to the exclusive venue in the county of one’s residence mentioned in article 1830 or article 2308 of the Revised Statutes” existed. Article 1903, Vernon’s Statutes, as amended April 2, 1917, chapter 176 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, art. 1903).

[2] The remaining assignment is that the court erred “in hearing the case on its merits and rendering judgment against the defendant” (appellant). The contention is without merit. Exceptions to the plea of privilege having been sustained, and appellant not having offered to amend same, the case stood as it would have stood’if the plea had never been filed. There was therefore, so far as anything in the record shows to the contrary, no other course for the court to pursue than to try the case on its merits, as he did. So far as the assignment presents a contention that the judgment against appellant was for any other reason unwarranted in law, it is too general to be entitled to consideration.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 S.W. 348, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/western-mut-fire-ins-co-v-childress-texapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack