Stark v. Whitman
Stark v. Whitman
Opinion of the Court
We are of opinion that the court below erred in sustaining Whitman’s plea of personal privilege and dismissing the cause. It has heretofore been held by this court that such a plea should anticipate and exclude all such supposable matter as would, if alleged on the opposite side, defeat the plea. Breen v. T. P. R. R. Co., 44 Tex., 302; H. & T. C. R. R. Co. v. Graves, 50 Tex., 200. The plea filed in this cause merely alleged the residence of defendant to be in the county of Newton, and did not negative the fact that he came within any of the exceptions which would have given the county of Orange jurisdiction of the cause. We think, therefore, that the plea was not good and should not have prevailed.
The action of the judge below in refusing to recuse himself, because of an alleged interest of his brother in the event of the suit, is also assigned for -error. If his brother had such interest, and this fact had been brought to the attention of the court by satisfactory evidence, it was his duty to decline sitting in the cause, and his refusal to do so would have been error. The objection was made, and it is stated that it was overruled without hearing evidence. This does not necessarily imply that the court refuséd to hear evidence, but may as well mean that none was offered. It is the duty of the party bringing the cause to this court to see that his case is properly presented below, and that the transcript cor
For the error of the court in sustaining the plea of personal privilege filed by defendant below, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- John T. Stark v. George W. Whitman
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Plea in abatement.—A plea in abatement because the defendant is not sued in the county of his residence cannot be sustained unless it negatives the existence of any of the exceptions which, under the statute, would authorize jurisdiction where the suit is brought. 2. Cases approved.— Breen v. T. P. R’y Co., 44 Tex., 302, and H. & T. C. R’y Co. v. Graves, 50 Tex., 200, approved. 3. Duty op appellant as to transcript.— It is the duty of a party bringing his cause to the supreme court to see that his case was properly presented below, and that the transcript correctly shows this to be so. lio presumptions will be indulged in his favor; on the contrary, in doubtful cases, they will be indulged against him. 4. Disqualification op judge — Pleading.— A defendant set up ore temes the disqualification of the presiding judge, on account of the alleged interest of the judge's brother in the suit, and took his exception to the action of the court thereon, which recited that “the objection was overruled without hearing any evidence; ” the record disclosed on this point nothing further. Held, (1) The court cannot presume that evidence was offered to sustain the objection. (2) On the contrary, it will be presumed that no evidence was offered.