« 이전계속 »
Pacific Exp. Co., Rosenberger v. (Mo.).... 429
Palmer, Archer v. (Ark.).
Peters, State v. (Mo.).
Saline Val. R. Co., Coffman v. (Mo. App.)1053
San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Houston
San Augustine Grocery Co., Fink v. (Tex.
Scanlan, Elstun v. (Tex. Civ. App.).
35 ..1107 953 866
953 Schimpler, Southern Nat. Bank v. (Ky.).. 148
Ohio Valley Coal & Mining Co. v. Heine (Ky.)
O'Kelley, State v. (Mo.).
Ortiz v. Walker (Tex. Civ. App.)
Owens, Supreme Hive of Ladies of Macca-
Phillips v. Grubbs (Ark.).
Phillips v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).
Pierce Oil Corp. v. Weinert (Tex.).
Porter v. Loyal Americans of Republic
Potter v. Campbell (Ky.).
Proctor Coal Co., Beaver's Adm'r v. (Ky.)..
Quigley, Crouch v. (Mo.)...
Quincy, O. & K. C. R. Co., George v. (Mo.
614 312 .1039
Radford v. Samstag (Ark.)..
(Tex. Civ. App.)...
Rathblath, International & G. N. R. Co. v.
(Tex. Civ. App.)....
Reed v. Moss (Mo.)..
Reppert, Alsworth v. (Tex. Civ. App.).
Sinclair v. Wismann (Mo. App.).
Sloan v. Gilmore (Tex. Civ. App.)
753 523 ..1098
Rhinehart, Newberry's Adm'x v. (Ky.)
Roach, State ex rel. Garesche v. (Mo.)
Robinson Seed & Plant Co. v. Hexter &
266 674 83 1022 1008 502 .1000 447
Kramer (Tex. Civ. App.).
Rounds v. Cloverport Foundry & Machine
Rowell, Bird v. (Mo. App.)
Sadau, Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. v.
Saffell v. State (Ark.).
St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Copeland
St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry., Eads v. (Mo.
St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Spriggs
St. Louis, S. F. & T. R. Co. v. Thomas (Tex. Civ. App.)..
St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Curtis (Ark.)
St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. of Texas
St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. of Texas v.
Shepherd, Lemon v. (Mo. App.)
463 500 .1089
Sly, State ex rel. Hackett v. (Mo. App.)....1197
Smith v. Egan (Mo.).
Smith, Joplin Supply Co. v. (Mo. App.).. 649 Smith v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)... 843
Smith & Co. v. Duncan (Tex. Civ. App.).. 233
Snyder Co., Louis P. Hyman & Co. v. (Ky.) 146
Sorge, Warne v. (Mo.).
Southern Kansas R. Co. of Texas, Logue v. (Tex.)....
Southern Nat. Bank v. Schimpler (Ky.)... 148
Southern Sand & Material Co., State v.
Spriggs, St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. (Ark.)
Stalcup, Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.).
Stamps v. Tittle (Tex. Civ. App.). Stanfield v. Hennegar (Mo.).
State, Allen v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
State, Baker v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
State, Barnhill v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
State, Caples v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
State, Davis v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
Stange, State v. (Mo. App.)
State v. Douglas (Mo.)..
State v. Dunnegan (Mo.).
State, Flannigan v. (Tex. Cr. App.)
State v. Flynn (Mo.)..
State, Garrard v. (Ark.).
State v. Gennusa (Mo.).
State, Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ.
v. (Tex. Civ. App.)..
State, Mora v. (Tex. Cr. App.)
State, O'Hara v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
State v. Stange (Mo. App.). State, Suggs v. (Tenn.)
State v. O'Kelley (Mo.).
State v. Perrigin (Mo.)..
State, Phillips v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
State v. Powell (Mo.).
State v. Ragghianti (Tenn.).
State, Singleton v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
State, Smith v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
279 776 .1036 ..1199
State, Taylor v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
State, Walker v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
State, Jones v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
State, Martoni v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
516 Sultrage, Martin v. (Ky.).
822 344 .1113
State ex rel. Chamberlain v. Young (Mo.).. 995 State ex rel. City of Elvins v. Marshall (Mo. App.)..
.1050 State ex rel. Garesche v. Drabelle (Mo.)...1016 State ex rel. Garesche v. Roach (Mo.). 1008 State ex rel. Hackett v. Sly (Mo. App.)....1197 State ex rel. Holmes v. Kernes (Mo. App.)1080 State ex rel. Journal Printing Co. v. Dreyer (Mo. App.)
Steinburg, Scheibler v. (Tenn.)
Stevens, Cobern v. (Tex. Civ. App.)..
.1123 866 207 761
State Bank's Receiver (Ky.)..
Stockton v. John Ainsfield Co. (Mo. App.)1143 Stoeltzing, Shaw v. (Mo. App.).
Stone, Hessig-Ellis Drug Co. v. (Tenn.).
Stout, City of Columbia v. (Mo. App.)....1153
Stringer, Combes v. (Tex.).
Sturgis, Loftus v. (Tex. Civ. App.). Stuyvesant Ins. Co., Gulf Compress Co. v. (Tenn.)
Supreme Hive of Ladies of Maccabees of
Surmeyer Lumber Co., Sconce v. (Mo.)... 997 43 Swain, Hickman v. (Tex.)... 209
529 Tafel, Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. (Ky.)... 887 965 Taylor v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).
.1113 Taylor, Western Union Tel. Co. v. (Tex. 524 'Civ. App.)..
Suggs v. Singley (Tex. Civ. App.). Suggs v. State (Tenn.).
Teat, Witt v. (Tex. Civ. App.)
Terry, Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.).. . .. .
.1110 Terry v. Groves (Mo.).
1 563 .1003
73 Tevis v. Tevis (Mo.)..
729 Texas Furniture Co. v. Meyers (Tex. Civ.
857 Texas Packing Co., Missouri, K. & T. R.
980 Tharp University School v. Komus Realty
520 Thomas v. English (Mo. App.).
353 Thomas, Prescott & N. W. R. Co. v. (Ark.) 486
689 Thompson v. O. A. Crenshaw Grain Co.
46 Thompson, Pecos & N. T. R. Co. v. (Tex.) 801 500 Thompson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).. 843 Thompson Pub. Co., Bryan v. (Mo.). . 356
Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Drennon
Tittle, Stamps v. (Tex. Civ. App.)
Texas & P. R. Co. v. Dickson Bros. (Tex.
122 Tomlin v. Clay (Tex. Civ. App.).
56 Town of Anchorage, Bernheim v. (Ky.). 345 Toyah Valley Irr. Co., Lastinger v. (Tex. 703 Civ. App.).. 339 .1160
Tracy v. Berridge (Mo. App.). Trapp v. Mersman (Mo. App.). 343 Trinity & B. V. R. Co. v. Dodd (Tex. Civ. .1109 App.)
Troll, Horton v. (Mo. App.).
Turner v. Tyler Land & Timber Co. (Mo.) 973
Page .1116 891
Ungerecht, Bond v. (Tenn.).
United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, Foster v.
United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, Hamm v.
United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, Maloney v. (Mo. App.).
United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, Veiss v. (Mo. App.)
United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, Warren v. (Mo. App.).
United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, Wellman v.
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.,
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.,
Urban, Cook v. (Tex. Civ. App.).
Van Blarcom, Winter v. (Mo.).
Veiss v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis (Mo.
Vessel's Adm'x, Louisville R. Co. v.
Vineyard v. Heard (Tex. Civ. App.).
Wahl, Ellis v. (Mo. App.)..
Walker, Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. (Tex.
Walker v. Lemma (Tenn.).
Walker, Ortiz v. (Tex. Civ. App.).
Weinert, Pierce Oil Corp. v. (Tex.).
615 (Ky.) 924 1117 22
Watson, Scott v. (Tex. Civ. App.)
Webb, Ex parte (Tex. Cr. App.).
Weidekamp's Adm'x v. Louisville & N. R.
113 967 .1109
Whitaker v. Bell Oil Co. (Mo. App.).
Wilkinson v. Harding Dredge Co. App.) 745 Wilkerson & Satterfield v. McMurry (Tex. 757 Civ. App.)...
Western Assur. Co. v. Hillyer-Deutsch-Jarratt Co. (Tex. Civ. App.)
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Crutcher (Ky.) 138
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Fricke & Boyd (Tex. Civ. App.)..
Western Union Tel. Co., Johnston v. (Tex.
Williams, Brickell v. (Mo. App.). 582 Williams v. Collins (Mo. App.).. 955 Williams v. Fulks (Ark.)..
474 Williams, Logan v. (Ky.).
Wallace, Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. (Tex.
Wallen, Prestonsburg Coal Co. v. (Ky.). 395
Walsh Tie & Timber Co. v. Chester, P. &
Ward Seminary for Young Ladies v. Nashville (Tenn.)..
Warne v. Sorge (Mo.).
Warner v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).
Watson, Edwards v. (Mo.).
Western Union Tel. Co., Kenedy Mercan-
Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Hodge
Whaley, Green v. (Mo.).
607 .1189 93
Williams v. J. W. Crowdus Drug Co. (Tex.
872 .1119 Yager's Guardian, Melcher v. (Ky.)...... 871 533 Yalr v. Hynes (Ky.). 268 Yeaman v. Galveston City Co. (Tex.). 103 York's Adm'r, Continental Coal Corp. v. .1113 (Ky.)
Young, Raifeisen v. (Mo. App.).
Young, State ex rel. Chamberlain v. (Mo.) 995
Williams, Stewart v. (Tex. Civ. App.)
Witt v. Teat (Tex. Civ. App.).
851 922 ...1115 Wright v. Southern Pac. Co. (Mo. App.)...1137
Worell Mfg. Co. v. Ashland (Ky.).
475 .1090 294
ANDERSON, CLAYTON & CO. v. TERRY. (No. 5362.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin. May 13, 1914.)
1. PLEADING (§ 104*) CHANGE OF VENUEPLEA OF PRIVILEGE-REQUISITES.
Rev. St. 1911, art. 1903, provides that a plea of privilege shall state that none of the exceptions to exclusive venue in the county of one's residence, mentioned in Rev. St. arts. 1830 or 2308, exist in the case. Held, that a plea of privilege, stating that none of the exceptions to exclusive venue in the county of one's residence, mentioned "in articles 1194, 1585, of the Revised Statutes," exist in the case, which articles did not relate to venue, was insufficient.
ferred to point out the exceptions to the statute which requires that a defendant shall be sued in the county of his residence. The plea of privilege filed in this case stated "that none of the exceptions to exclusive venue in the county of one's residence mentioned in article 1194 or article 1585 of the Revised Statutes of the state of Texas exist in this case." At the time this suit was brought and the plea referred to was filed, the Revised Statutes of 1911, from which we have quoted a portion of article 1903, were in force, and contained two articles numbered 1194 and 1585, but those articles do not relate to the subject of venue of suits. So it is quite clear that the plea omitted to state what the statute required, and for that reason we hold that it was insufficient, and that no error was committed in disregarding it.
 It is true that the plea stated:
"That this suit does not come within any of the exceptions provided by law in such cases authorizing suit to be brought or maintained in the county of Milam, state of Texas, or elsewhere outside of the county of Harris, State of
That statement contained a conclusion of law in the mind of the person who prepared the plea. The statute does not require or authorize the making of such general statement; nor do we feel justified in holding that such statement will supply the omission to state that which the statute requires.
No error has been shown, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.
KEY, C. J. C. H. Terry brought this suit against Anderson, Clayton & Co. and certain other defendants, and, from a judgment rendered in his favor against Anderson, Clayton & Co. the latter have appealed.
-RESIDENCE OF PARTIES.
 Appellants filed a plea of privilege to be sued in another county, and the only ques-JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (§ 72*)—JuriSDICTION tion presented by this appeal is the action of Under Rev. St. 1911, art. 2308, requiring the trial court in refusing to submit that suits before a justice of the peace to be complea to the jury. Article 1903 of the Revised menced in the county in which the defendants, or one of them, reside, except in certain cases, Statutes requires, among other things, that among which is a suit upon a contract in writsuch a plea of privilege shall state "that none ing promising performance at a particular place, of the exceptions to exclusive venue in the which may be brought in that county, where a county of one's residence mentioned in arti- suit was begun on a promissory note, payable at a certain place, and secured by a chattel cle 1830 or article 2308 of the Revised Stat-mortgage, against the maker of the note and utes exist in said cause." The articles re-the subsequent purchasers of the mortgaged
NOBLE et al. v. BROAD. (No. 5335.)
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
property, none of whom resided in the county in which the suit was brought, the defendants other than the maker of the note are entitled
to have the suit against them transferred to the county of their residence, since they were not parties to the agreement to pay at the particular place.
which judgment Noble and McGregor have appealed to this court, urging that the court erred in overruling their pleas of privilege, as well as rendering judgment against them foreclosing said mortgage lien.
None of the defendants resided in Coleman
county at the time the suit was brought, or process issued, or judgment rendered, nor did any of them have possession of the property in question against which the foreclosure was sought, nor were any of them claiming any interest therein; but it appeared that
Appeal from Coleman County Court; F. M. Bowen, Judge.
Leroy Vaughan had, prior thereto, removed the property out of the state. Appellants'
ants appeal. Reversed, with instructions.
Action by William Broad against T. B. Noble and others. On appeal from a justice of the peace to the county court, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and defend-pleas of privilege were in due form and supported by the facts, showing that neither of them came within any of the exceptions to exclusive venue mentioned in articles 1830 or 2308 of the Revised Civil Statutes of 1911, and, in view of this, it is urged that since none of the defendants lived in Coleman county, and appellants were not parties to the note sued on, that they were improperly joined in a suit by the payee against the maker of the note, notwithstanding the fact that no personal judgment was asked against them, but only a foreclosure of the mortgage
Critz & Woodward, of Coleman, for appellants. Snodgrass, Dibrell & Snodgrass, of Coleman, for appellee.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Justices of the Peace, Cent. Dig. §§ 56, 143-145, 235; Dec. Dig. § 72.*]
Jenkins, J., dissenting.
RICE, J. While living in Coleman county, J. R. Hager became indebted to appellee in the sum of $125, and on December 3, 1909, gave him his note therefor, payable on the 1st of March, 1911, at Coleman, Tex., bearing 10 per cent. interest and 10 per cent. attorney's fees, secured by a chattel mortgage on two mares, which was duly filed and registered in said county. Afterwards he removed from Coleman to Clay county, taking said animals with him, without the knowledge or consent of appellee, and there mortgaged the same to T. B. Noble and H. L. McGregor to secure a debt due them, who, when the same matured, brought suit to enforce collection thereof, with foreclosure of said mortgage lien, and purchased said property at their foreclosure sale, crediting the amount paid therefor on their judgment against Hager. They subsequently sold said property to Leroy Vaughan, who paid value therefor. This suit was brought June 14, 1912, by appellee in justice court precinct No. 1, Coleman county, against Hager on said note, and against all of the other parties above named, praying for judgment for the debt against Hager, and for foreclosure of his mortgage lien as against said other parties. Hager
answered; but each of the others filed pleas of personal privilege to be sued in the counties of their residences, to wit, Clay and Wichita. On July 28, 1913, judgment went against Hager on the debt, with foreclosure of the mortgage as prayed for, but in favor of Noble, McGregor, and Vaughan on their pleas of privilege, transferring the case to the justice's court of precinct No. 4, Clay county. An appeal was taken to the county court, where the case was tried before the court, without a jury, and resulted in a judgment on the 30th of October, 1913, in favor of appellee against Hager for his debt and foreclosure of the mortgage lien, and against The bank having pleaded the privilege to all of the other parties thereto on their pleas be sued in Comanche, the county of its resiof privilege, and for foreclosure of the mort- dence, it was held that it could not be joined gage lien, as well as for costs of suit, from in the suit in McLennan county, on the
Article 2308 of the Revised Statutes provides that every suit in the court of a justice of the peace shall be commenced in the county and precinct in which the defendant,
or one or more of the several defendants, resides, except in the following cases, and such other cases as are or may be provided by law, etc. Exception 4 provides that suits upon a contract in writing promising perbrought in the county and precinct in which formance at any particular place may be such contract was to be performed, and this thorizing the suit against appellants in this exception is relied upon by appellee as au
In the case of Behrens Drug Co. v. Hamilton & McCarty, 92 Tex. 284, 48 S. W. 5, the plaintiff brought suit in McLennan county in Comanche county, and against the First against Hamilton & McCarty, who resided National Bank of Comanche. As stated by
Hamilton & McCarty the sum of $1,269.50, with "The object of the suit was to recover against interest, the value of certain merchandise sold to them by the drug company, for which they had agreed in writing to make payment in McLennan county, and to recover of the First National Bank of Comanche the value of certain book accounts and choses in action, alleged to have been transferred and assigned to the plaintiff by Hamilton & McCarty to secure their indebtedness to the plaintiff, and after that transfer Hamilton & McCarty had pretended to transfer the same to the First National Bank of Comanche, and said bank had wrongfully seiz ed and converted them to its own use."