Legal Opinion · Dissent

Green Pastures Water Co. v. Zent

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided November 9, 1978No. 8130Published

1DissentKeith, Justice

As noted correctly in the majority opinion, “ ‘venue under subdivision 5, cannot be fixed by implication.’ ” That has been the uniform holding of our court since Saigh v. Monteith, 147 Tex. 341, 215 S.W.2d 610, 611 (1948), following the 1935 statutory amendment to Subdivision 5.1 Indeed, the holding in Maynard Hill, Inc. v. Smith, 534 S.W.2d 733, 736 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1976, no writ), cited by the majority, enunciates clearly the correct rule that venue cannot be fixed by implication.

The contract which Zent sought to enforce did not obligate defendant to sell anything to Zent at any specified…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Saigh v. Monteith, C.J.Texas Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Tyson v. Seaport Grain, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1965
  3. Harkness v. Employers National Insurance CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Maynard Hill, Inc. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1976
  5. Texas American Oil Corp. v. Theo H. Blue Drilling, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1977

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API