6 S.W. 417 (Tex. 1887), Feibleman v. Edmunds
|Citation:||6 S.W. 417, 69 Tex. 334|
|Party Name:||FEIBLEMAN et al. v. EDMUNDS.|
|Attorney:||[69 Tex. 335] Robertson & Coke and Montrose & Grubbs, for appellants. [69 Tex. 336] Matthews & Neyland and Perkins, Gilbert & Perkins, for appellee.|
|Case Date:||December 13, 1887|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Texas|
Appeal from district court, Hunt county; J. A. B. PUTNAM, Judge.
This was an action by the appellee against all the appellants for actual damages for wrongfully suing out an attachment by E. & T. J. Feibleman against appellee, the other appellants being sureties on the attachment
bond, and against E. & T. J. Feibleman alone, for maliciously suing out the same writ. The case below resulted in a verdict and judgment for appellee against all the appellants for $150, actual damages, and against E. & T. J. Feibleman for $4,850, vindictive damages. From this judgment an appeal is prosecuted to this court. The Feiblemans were non-residents of Texas, and they were served with notice, under our Rev. St. arts. 1230, 1231, in New Orleans, Louisiana. At the July term, 1886, of the district court, to which term the notice was returnable, the Feiblemans filed a motion to quash the service for defects appearing upon the face of the notice and in the manner of the service. This motion does not appear to have been acted on, but, at request of appellee's counsel, leave to amend the return so as to cure the defects was granted. Subsequently, during the same term, the Feiblemans moved to dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction over their persons, claiming that they could not be brought into court by service of such a notice. Afterwards, the defendants filed a plea to the jurisdiction, based upon the same grounds as their motion to dismiss. To this the plaintiff excepted, and also replied that the defendants were in court by their motion to quash service, by resisting a [69 Tex. 337] motion to amend the return, by their motion to dismiss, and by their answer to the jurisdiction. The exceptions of plaintiff, to this answer, were sustained, and nothing else appears to have been done with the cause till the next, or January, term, 1887, of the court. On the fourth of January, 1887, the court overruled the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction; and on the seventeenth of that month the appellants applied to have the cause removed to the circuit court of the United States at Dallas. The application shows that there is a controversy between the Feiblemans and the appellee to which the other appellants are neither proper nor necessary parties; and that the constitutional right of the state to bring a non-resident defendant into court, by notice served outside of its limits, is brought in question. This application...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP