Haney v. Fenley, Bate, Deaton and Porter
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Allcat Claims Service, L.P. and John Weakly (Tex. 2011)
- Jacox v. Cobb (Tex. App. 1983)
- Lawler v. Dallas Statler-Hilton Joint Venture (Tex. App. 1990)
- Lifshutz v. Lifshutz (Tex. App. 2006)
- Texas Westheimer Corp. v. 5647 Westheimer Associates (Tex. App. 2001)
- Destec Energy, Inc. v. Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Tex. App. 1998)
- Destec Energy, Inc., Destec Operating Company, Cogen Lyondell, Inc., and Lyondell Petrochemical Company v. Houston Lighting & Power Company (Tex. App. 1998)
- Burnap v. Linnartz (Tex. App. 1995)
- Seidman & Seidman v. Schwartz (Tex. App. 1984)
- Kao Holdings, L.P. v. Young (Tex. 2008)
- Juan Jose Lara-Robledo v. Robert Salmons D/B/A Saga City Development Co. (Tex. App. 2008)
- Lakedreams, a Texas Partnership v. Steve Taylor, D/B/A California T's (5th Cir. 1991)
- ISO Production Management 1982, Ltd. v. M & L Oil & Gas Exploration, Inc. (Tex. App. 1989)
- Thomas v. Price (District Court, S.D. Texas 1989)
- Poe v. Hutchins (Tex. App. 1987)
- Marshall v. Marshall (Tex. App. 1987)
- Corinth Joint Venture v. Lomas & Nettleton Financial Corp. (Tex. App. 1984)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is a venue action. Suit for recovery of attorney’s fees was brought by Fenley et al., a law partnership, against John Haney and Craig 0. Canon, as a partnership and as individuals. Haney filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Walker County. Fenley et al., in their controverting plea, alleged that suit was maintainable in Angelina County against the partnership under Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat.Ann. art. 1995, § 23. The trial court overruled Haney’s plea of privilege, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. 612 S.W.2d 208.
Article 1995, Subdivision 23 provides, in pertinent part:
“Suits against a[n] ... association . .. may be brought ... in the county in which the cause of action or part thereof arose....”
The Court of Civil Appeals, relying on Hudgens v. Bain Equipment & Tube Sales, Inc., 459 S.W.2d 873 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1970, no writ), held that a partnership is an “association” for venue purposes under Subdivision 23.
We agree. The two conflicting cases, Bubble Up Bottling Co. v. Lewis, 163 S.W.2d 875 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1942, no writ) and Heid Bros. v. Mueller-Huber Grain Co., 185 S.W.2d 470 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1944, no writ), were decided when a partnership was considered to be an aggregate of individuals acting under a contract — the aggregate theory of partnership. However, after the adoption of the Texas Uniform Partnership Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 6132b, effective January 1,1962, a partnership was recognized as an entity legally distinct from its partners for most purposes. See Bromberg, Commentary on the Texas Uniform Partnership Act, 17 Tex. Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. 300 (Vernon 1970). The entity theory of partnership is consistent with other laws permitting suit in the partnership name and service on one partner. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. arts. 2223 and 2033. We approve the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals that a partnership is an “association” for venue purposes under Subdivision 23. We disapprove Bubble Up Bottling Co. v. Lewis, supra, and Heid Bros. v. Mueller-Huber Grain Co., supra.
Pursuant to the authority conferred by Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.