217 S.W. 1079 | Tex. App. | 1919
The insistence in appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal that an appeal does not lie from an order overruling a plea of privilege is in the face of an express provision in the statute (Revised Statutes 1911, art. 1903, as amended April 2, 1917), allowing such an appeal. The motion is overruled.
It is entirely clear, we think, that the suit was not maintainable in Titus county on the ground that appellant committed a "trespass" there, within the meaning of the ninth exception to article 1830, Vernon's Statutes.
And we think appellee also failed to discharge the burden which rested upon him to show that the suit was maintainable in Titus county on the ground that appellant was guilty of fraud there, within the meaning of the seventh exception to said article of the Statutes. The testimony relied on to establish fraud on appellant's part is set out in the statement above. It may have been sufficient to show that appellant perpetrated a fraud on appellee when he sold and conveyed the land to Harrington. But that occurred in Collin and not in Titus county. Boothe v. Fiest,
The judgment will be reversed, and a judgment sustaining appellant's plea of privilege, and directing the clerk of the county court of Titus county to make up a transcript of all *1081 the orders made in said cause, certify there to officially under the seal of said court, and transmit the same, with the original papers in the cause, to the clerk of the county court of Collin county, will be here rendered.