Stephens, supra, at 824. Another case wherein a verification similar to the one in question here was held sufficient is Pugh v. Borst, 237 S.W.2d 1021 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1951, no writ). As long as the affidavit clearly states that the facts contained in the affidavit are true and correct, there is no need for further qualification of the affiant.

The Motion to Dismiss amounted to a general demurrer, which Tex.R.Civ.P. 90 directs "shall not be used." See Ragsdale v. Ragsdale, 520 S.W.2d 839, 842 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1975, no writ); Pugh v. Borst, 237 S.W.2d 1021 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1951, no writ); McClain v. State, 235 S.W.2d 947 (Tex.Civ.App. Eastland 1951, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Tyler, 224 S.W.2d 783 (Tex.Civ.App. Galveston 1949, writ ref'd). The proper manner for defendant below to raise its contention would be to seek a Summary Judgment as provided in Tex.R.Civ.P. 166-A, or it could proceed in the manner outlined by Judge Keith in McCamey v. Kinnear, 484 S.W.2d 150, 152-153 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1972, writ ref'd n. r. e.).

The order of the court granting appellant herein temporary custody on the same day that he filed his original petition for a change of permanent custody was interlocutory and an ad interim order. It is held that venue relates to a trial upon the merits and not to temporary and preliminary orders which to not invoke the court's general jurisdiction in the main suit. Pugh v. Borst, 237 S.W.2d 1021 (Tex.Civ.App., 1951, no writ history). Appellee's request for the court to give consideration to the matter of dissolving the ex parte temporary custody order did not invoke the court's general jurisdiction in the main suit.

C. H. Bradford did not have the custody of the child and he was not a proper or necessary party to the suit. Stockyards National Bank v. Maples, 127 Tex. 633, 95 S.W.2d 1300; Pugh v. Borst, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 1021; Spell v. Green, 144 Tex. 535, 192 S.W.2d 260; Knollhoff v. Norris, Tex.Sup., 256 S.W.2d 79. The plaintiffs did not prove bona fide cause of action against C. H. Bradford. The evidence shows that the child was in Tom Green County on a visit by the consent of the grandparents with their daughter and C. H. Bradford did not have custody of the child.