the policy against depriving a plaintiff of its chosen forum. Both federal and Texas courts have prevented defendants from seeking declaratory relief when defendants’ sole purpose is to bereave the plaintiff of its selected forum and substitute a forum more favorable to them. See Allendale Mut. Ins. v. Bull Data Systems, 10 F.3d 425, 431 (7th Cir.1993) (upholding district court’s dismissal of declaratory judgment action “aimed solely at wresting choice of forum from ‘natural’ plaintiff); kirkbride v. Continental Cas. Co., 933 F.2d 729, 734-735 (affirming district court’s refusal of jurisdiction when party was attempting to use the Declaratory Judgment Act to deprive a plaintiff of his selected forum or encourage a race to judgment); Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 566 (Tex.1985) (<HOLDING>); Space Master Int’l., Inc. v. Portar-Kamp Mfg.
holding that to establish jurisdiction in action for declaratory judgment controversy must be actual and present a case for the consideration of the court wherein plaintiff is asserting some legal or property right adverse to defendant holding that the trial court should have declined jurisdiction in declaratory action to avoid depriving real plaintiff of traditional right to choose time and place of suit holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action recognizing that if the plaintiff files suit in a county where venue does not lie the plaintiff waives the right to choose and the defendant may have the suit transferred to a proper venue holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment