TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gold v. McDuff

Merl GOLD v. Fred McDUFF

Gold v. McDuff, 324 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. App. 1959)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 1, 1959
Docket
No. 16001
Judges
Renfro
Citations
324 S.W.2d 2291959 Tex. App. LEXIS 2399

Opinion of the Court — Renfro

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

RENFRO, Justice.

On March 12, 1958, plaintiff McDuff brought suit against defendant Gold in the District Court of Cooke County to recover a balance of $44,350, allegedly due on notes originally totaling $55,000. The petition did not allege place of payment of the notes. The petition alleged: “The defendant is a resident of the State of Texas and is now conducting a portion or part of his business in Cooke County, Texas.” The defendant, on March 27, filed his plea of privilege in statutory form to be sued in Harris County, his domicile. On April 5, plaintiff’s attorney filed “Response to Defendant’s Plea of Privilege” and “upon information and belief neither admits nor denies the allegations of defendant’s Plea of Privilege, but demands strict proof thereof * * Thereafter, on April 17, plaintiff’s attorney filed a controverting affidavit, adopting the original petition, and alleged that at the time the suit was filed defendant’s residence was Cooke County. The oath to the controverting affidavit concluded, “the statements contained in the foregoing controverting plea are true and correct as he verily believes.” Defendant filed numerous exceptions to the controverting affidavit, and specially pointed out that the affidavit, being based on information and belief, was insufficient. The plaintiff did not choose to amend. The exceptions were overruled. After hearing, the court overruled the plea of privilege.

The defendant contends the controverting affidavit was insufficient to raise any question to be decided by the court.

The affidavit controverting a plea of privilege must be direct, unmistakable and unequivocal as to the facts sworn to. The allegations of fact must be on the knowledge of the affiant. The affiant must swear to the truth of his statements and not according to his knowledge and belief. 43-B Tex.Jur., p. 337, sec. 136; Savage v. Herrin Transfer & Warehouse Co., Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W.2d 101 ; Pinkston v. Wills, Tex.Civ.App., 200 S.W.2d 843 .

The words, “he verily believes”, in the oath clearly base affiant’s oath on belief and not on knowledge of the facts alleged. The order of the trial court is reversed and the cause ordered transferred to the District Court of Harris County.

Reversed and rendered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1966: 119662026peak 1966 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bruce v. State402 S.W.2d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966)

Most recent

  1. Bruce v. State402 S.W.2d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Savage v. Herrin Transfer & Warehouse Co., 219 S.W.2d 101 (Tex. App. 1949) 9
Pinkston v. Wills, 200 S.W.2d 843 (Tex. App. 1947) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list