¶1 (dissenting).- I think the word “fraud,” as used in subdivision 7 of article 1830, Vernon’s Statutes, means fraud the law takes notice of, because it resulted in injury to the person on whom it was practiced. Therefore I do not agree that it was not necessary for appellee, to sustain the right he asserted to maintain his suit in Bowie county, to show he was injured as a result of reliance he placed on the truth of the representations he alleged appellants made to him, and which, he further alleged, were false. But I agree the judgment should be affirmed on the other ground stated in the opinion above; that is, because there was testimony from which it might be inferred appellee suffered injury because of his reliance on the truth of the representations.
226 S.W. 819
Edmonds v. White
Decided December 23, 1920
Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1920-12-23
<p>1. Pleading &wkey;>I 11 — Plaintiff, to sue in county on ground that fraud was perpetrated therein, need not prove the fraud.</p> <p>On plea of privilege to be sued in a county in which one of the defendants lived, plaintiff to sustain the right to sue defendants in county in which the action was brought on the ground'that it was an action for fraud, and that the fraud was perpetrated in such county, under Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. .1830, subd. 7, was not required to prove -the fraud, but merely that a transaction which might constitute an actionable fraud occurred in the county where the suit was filed; the question of whether plaintiff sustained an injury from the perpetration of fraud and the extent of such injury being the matters to be determined in a trial on the merits after the issue of venue had been settled.</p> <p>2. Pleading <&wkey;l 11 — Evidence held to prove right to bring action in county on ground that fraud was perpetrated therein.</p> <p>In action for fraud, evidence on plea of privilege held sufficient to sustain plaintiff’s right t.o bring action in county in which it was filed, on the ground that the fraud was perpetrated therein.</p> <p>Willson, C. J., dissenting.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1920-12-23
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 1972
21 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →