concurring.
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment of the trial court. I do not, however, subscribe to the view that Trial Rule 75(BE) requires that a litigant must necessarily demonstrate past injury or prejudice before he may assert error in the denial of a preferred venue motion.
Although the record before us may not do so, when it is disclosed unmistakably that the preferred venue lies in one place only, and that a litigant would be compelled to travel long distances, and undergo extreme expense in defending himself, he should not be compelled to undergo such burden as a condition precedent to an assertion of error on appeal.
To be sure, when a defendant chooses to suffer a default judgment rather than defend the suit in the improper venue, he places all his eggs in one basket and must succeed upon appeal but he should not be precluded from doing so if he can demonstrate that had he defended, he would have incurred prejudice or injury. In such instance, I would additionally require the appellant to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the claim. Cantwell v. Cantwell (1957) 237 Ind. 168, 173-78, 143 N.E.2d 275, 278-80, cert. denied, 356 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 700, 2 L.Ed.2d 712; Moe v. Koe (2d Dist. 1975) 165 Ind.App. 98, 102, 330 N.E.2d 761, 764. See also Kelly v. Reynolds (24 Dist.1976) Ind.App., 358 N.E.2d 146, 150 n.5.