Wells v. Metro Fina Co.
677 S.W.2d 251
Tex. App.
1984
Check Treatment

*1 firmed. PRESLAR, C.J., Before STEPHEN F. OSBORN,

and WARD and JJ.

OPINION WARD, Justice.

Appellants characterize this action as “an interlocutory from an order overruling Appellants’ Privilege.” Plea of *2 252 perfected eight by appeal the not until tion and at least cases the courts

Because was 1, 1983, September appeals passed on the as after we will dismiss of jurisdiction. procedural stages of the for want of various varying trial with reasons the conclu Appellee The filed suit on a sworn ac date, Supreme the sions each reached. To count in the 65th of Paso District Court to the Court has not had occasion construe County; Appellants plea the filed their of However, The statute. conflict exists. privilege county to be in the of their sued Grocery, of v. Butt case Gonzalez H.E. residence, prior occurring both to actions Co., (Tex.App. Corpus 667 188 S.W.2d — 1, September hearing 1983. A was held 1983, writ) the Christi no conflicts with 1983, 9, privilege. of plea June on the opinion. majority cases cited our Appellants’ plea order the was en 898, 28, Ap Bill of As Senate tered on October 1983. Notice 1983, repeals Article and Arti- 10, both amends 1995 peal filed November a was 2008, speaks so that when it of the cle deposit cash in lieu of cost certificate changes that 10, includes This bond filed November is Article 1995. Section 1 of the act makes thus, an order purported appeal a from to Article extensive amendments 1995 with overruling plea privilege which was many exceptions general its to the venue 1, perfected September taken and after 3, by rule. It followed 2 and is Sections interlocutory appeal is now 1983. No providing: permitted. Grubbs v. Mercantile Texas 2008, Article (Tex.App. Section 2. Revised Civil Corp., 668 S.W.2d 429 — Eastland amended, 1925, Ramcon, as 1984, history); et al. Statutes of no writ v. Co., repealed. Building Inc. 668 American Steel (Tex.App. 459 no S.W.2d Paso Septem- This act takes effect Section 3. — El Bank, writ); Boyd Raymondville 1, 1983, apply v. pend- State and shall not to ber (Tex.App. Corpus 668 466 ing questions. S.W.2d on venue For the appeals — Graue-Haws, Inc. history); appeals questions no writ v. purpose of on venue Fuller, 1, 1983, The Honorable Lawrence 666 to pending prior September (Tex.App. 238 no S.W.2d Paso is continued in effect. former law — El writ); Williams, v. by Morrison Morrison is the belief that under rules of It writer’s (Tex.App. 665 212 Antonio S.W.2d — San construction, interpretation to statutory Pharris, history); Byrd no writ v. given act is the former venue this that be (Tex.App. 663 856 Antonio S.W.2d — San prior filed governs all cases statute 1983, no Gonzalez v. H.E. Contra: filed effective date and cases after (Tex. Co., Grocery, S.W.2d 188 Butt 667 by are the amended statute. governed date 1983, writ). App. Corpus Christi — That is The effective date is stated. appeal is dismissed. provisions additional as to followed There is no mention pending appeals. PRESLAR, Justice, P. STEPHEN Chief ques- pending in the courts. Our suits trial dissenting. becomes, did the intend tion alter should the venue I on respectfully dissent the basis The rule pending suits—be retroactive? should determined under the this case be act 1,1983, is that an will not be prior September of construction existing to the appears by it interpret applied retrospectively Bill unless amendments. would Senate (1983),amending implication language from the Legislature Ar fair 68th it the intent of the Tex. entire act that repealing Article ticle 1995 applicable make it to both provide cases Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. 1, 1983, parte past future transactions. Ex are be prior filed (Tex.1981); Abell, Mer- leg Poor determined under law. Lines, v. Railroad Motor Inc. draftsmanship has created the chants Fast islative Texas, 573 legisla S.W.2d date of the Commission problem of the effective (Tex.1978); pending an Coastal Industries Au- suit in amendment to a venue Water thority Trinity Portland Divi- Cement statute.”

sion, Compa- General Portland Cement case The instant does an (Tex.1978). ny, 563 S.W.2d 916 And it is exception legisla- from that construction of held, statutory presumed amendment is *3 right tive intent. There is no to operate prospectively only. Amplifone under the amended but this case was Corporation v. County, Cameron pro- filed under old and should be law (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus — through cessed the courts under that law. 1979, no persua- And the burden of appeal. would dismiss the urging sion is on the one retroactive con- Considering struction. the entire act be- us,

fore is no implication” there “fair it to intended be retroactive. Nothing pre- to overcome the

sumption against If retroactivity. the act retroactive, is construed to be then all September 1, cases filed appeal by not on are without a MILLER, Harry Weldon Jr. Pat a/k/a remedy. They are too soon for the new act Miller, Appellant, and too late for the old law. What was when, pled, how and under old new, cannot be under for as ux., Rex et DICKENSON Sue some actions have been abolished and the Dickenson, Appellees. requirements for relief under the new law so harnessed new procedure, rules of 1983,that there is possibility carrying Fort Worth. over into the new what was started under Sept. 6, 1984. the old. through See Rules 86 inclu- fact, sive. reading Tex.R.Civ.P.

those rules raises the belief that the Su-

preme Court thought wrote them with no

that the act was retroactive. As to con-

struction of venue particular, statutes in

Texas courts have many times determined applicability of an of a amendment ven- ue statute to a case filed before the amend- time,

ment’s effective date. Each courts have held that the law in effect at filing

the time of the of suit determined Beginning Jemison, venue. with Baines v. (1983) 86 Tex. S.W. (answering question as a the very certified us). before For now an excellent discus- present sion see McCown, Date Effective of the Venue Amendments, Litigation Report, State Bar Advocate, April, Vol No.

Professor McCown cites authorities for the fact that since case Baines v. Jemi- son, “the never has been found

to have intended to alter the venue of a