Aynesworth v. Peacock Military College
| Decision Date | 01 December 1920 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1715.) |
| Citation | 225 S.W. 866 |
| Parties | AYNESWORTH v. PEACOCK MILITARY COLLEGE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Childress County Court; M. J. Hathaway, Judge.
Action by Joseph H. Aynesworth against the Peacock Military College. From a judgment sustaining a plea of privilege, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
C. A. Williams, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
W. B. Howard, of Childress, for appellee.
The appellant brought this suit against the appellee in the county court of Childress county, alleging that on January 1, 1920, he paid the defendant the sum of $380, for "board, tuition, supplies, and other incidentals necessary for the keeping of plaintiff's son for the remainder of the school year of the defendant, in its college;" that the plaintiff's son remained in the school only three or four days, and was forced to leave on account of the treatment received there; that, whether this last allegation be true or not, the son did leave in about four days. It was further alleged that the defendant was claiming to have enlisted the plaintiff's son under a contract signed by the plaintiff, which made its catalogue a part of such contract and that by the terms of said catalogue, so made a part of said contract, the plaintiff forfeited any right to the return of any money upon the voluntary withdrawal of the pupil; that the plaintiff was induced to sign such contract by the fraud of the defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover said sum of $380, less such amount as should be awarded the defendant for the services rendered while his son was in the school.
The defendant is a corporation having its principal office in Bexar county, and pleaded its privilege of being sued there. The court sustained this plea, and the appeal is from this judgment of the court.
The plaintiff lived in Childress county, and the contract between him and the defendant for the board and tuition of his son was evidenced by telegrams and letters exchanged by the plaintiff at Childress and the defendant at San Antonio. The plaintiff, by letter and telegram sent from Childress, accepted the offer made by the defendant and transmitted to the plaintiff at Childress by letter and telegram, so that it may be said that the contract was made in Childress. Houston Packing Co. v. Cuero Cotton Oil Mill Co., 220 S. W. 394; Cuero Cotton Oil & Mfg. Co. v. Feeders' Supply Co., 203 S. W. 79. It is settled by the decisions of this state that a cause of action, based upon a contract, arises in part in the county where the contract was made, even if the contract was to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Villarreal v. Art Institute of Houston Inc.
...Antonio 1912); Peirce v. Peacock Military College 220 S. W. 191 (Tex. Civ. App.--San Antonio 1920); Aynesworth v. Peacock Military College, 225 S. W. 866 (Tex. Civ. App.--Amarillo 1920); Peacock Military College v. Hughes, 225 S. W. 221 (Tex. Civ. App.--San Antonio 1920); Peacock Military C......
-
Mulkey v. Allen
...favor (Sovereign Camp v. Piper [Tex. Civ. App.] 222 S. W. 649; Jackson v. Compress Co. [Tex. Civ. App.] 202 S. W. 324; Aynesworth v. Peacock [Tex. Civ. App.] 225 S. W. 866); but when after every construction favorable to its sufficiency is indulged, it either fails to allege some element es......
-
Brooks Supply Co. v. Senter Bros. & Co.
...Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.) 203 S. W. 463; San Jacinto Life Insurance Co. v. Boyd (Tex. Civ. App) 214 S. W. 482; Aynesworth v. Peacock Military College (Tex. Civ. App.) 225 S. W. 866; Danciger v. Smith, 229 S. W. 909. The breach in part was the delay in delivering the drill, etc., in Wichita cou......
-
Permian Basin Life Ins. Co. v. Stuart, 13915
...Oil Co. v. Guitar, Tex.Civ.App., 3 S.W.2d 471; Continental State Bank v. Mailander, Tex.Civ.App., 277 S.W. 232; Aynesworth v. Peacock Military College, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W. 866; National Life Co. v. Harvey, Tex.Civ.App.1942, 159 S.W.2d The general rule in Texas is that a person who has be......