Baines v. Jemison

Decision Date02 November 1893
CitationBaines v. Jemison, 23 S.W. 639, 86 Tex. 118 (Tex. 1893)
PartiesBAINES v. JEMISON et al.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Action by James H. Baines against Jemison, Groce & Co. and others.From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals to the court of civil appeals, which court submits to the supreme court, for determination, the question on which the correctness of the judgment turns.Affirmed.

N. B. Short and Bryarly, Brewer & Brewer, for appellant.Geo. W. Davis, T. C. Davis, and Davidson & Minor, for appellees.

GAINES, J.

The court of civil appeals for the first supreme judicial district submits for our determination the following question: "The appellant instituted suit in the district court of Shelby county on the 16th day of March, 1887, for the recovery of damages for the alleged wrongful issuance of an attachment, by the procurement of appelleesJemison, Groce & Co., from the district court of Galveston county, and the wrongful and illegal levy of the same in Shelby county, on the 27th of October, 1886, upon appellant's property, by the sheriff of Shelby county, at the instance and request of appellees.The appelleesJemison, Groce & Co., among other pleas, alleged their residence to be in Galveston county, and claimed the privilege of being sued in the county of their domicile.The cause came on for trial on the 14th day of November, 1891, and on that day the jury returned the following verdict: `We, the jury, find for the defendants upon the plea to the jurisdiction.'And thereupon judgment was rendered that the plaintiff take nothing by this suit, and that the defendants recover costs.The court, in its instruction to the jury upon the question of venue, gave in charge the law as it stood at the institution of the suit, and ignored both the act approved March 25, 1887, and the act approved March 29, 1889.The defendant Sims was made a party subsequent to the 16th of March, 1887, the day on which the original petition was filed, but as to when he was made a party the record is silent.His first answer was filed November 11, 1887.The defendantsJemison, Groce & Co. filed their original plea and answer on May 13, 1887.The issue of law submitted for adjudication is, did the court err in giving in charge the law regulating the venue of suits, as it existed when the suit was instituted, rather than the law as it is declared in the act of March 29, 1889?"

We are of opinion that the trial judge did not err in his ruling.Since the venue of a suit affects...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
17 cases
  • Texas Dept. Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 2 d5 Abril d5 2004
    ...11 S.W. 1032, 1032 (1888). 12. See, e.g., Pecos & N.T. Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 106 Tex. 456, 167 S.W. 801, 801 (1914); Baines v. Jemison, 86 Tex. 118, 23 S.W. 639, 640 (1893); Watson v. Baker, 67 Tex. 48, 2 S.W. 375, 375-76 13. See, e.g., Brown v. Gay, 76 Tex. 444, 13 S.W. 472, 472-73 (1890). ......
  • Ingram v. Sherwood
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 22 d6 Abril d6 1905
    ...Kirby's Dig. § 6098; 73 Ark. 344; 22 Ark. 556; 72 Ark. 67; 58 Ark. 381; 60 Ark. 333. The petition was sufficient. Kirby's Dig. § 7798; 23 S.W. 639; N.H. 35; 66 N.C. 398; 38 Conn. 397. The tax sale of 1869 is not shown, to be void. 69 Ark. 101; 85 Ind. 311; 44 Ind. 223; 35 Ind. 380. George C......
  • Thomas Goggan & Bros. v. Morrison
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 26 d3 Novembro d3 1913
    ...75 Tex. 69, 12 S. W. 478; Hubbard v. Lord, supra; Focke, Wilkie & Long v. Blum, 82 Tex. 436, 17 S. W. 770. The case of Baines v. Jemison, 86 Tex. 118, 23 S. W. 639, was based on facts occurring prior to this enactment, and contained no allegation showing that the plaintiff wrongfully conspi......
  • Walker v. Alexander
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 11 d6 Janeiro d6 1919
    ...contention that venue of this suit was fixed in Jones county by the amendment above quoted. Appellee cites such cases as Baines v. Jemison, 86 Tex. 118, 23 S. W. 639, as sustaining his contention that the amendatory act should not be given a retroactive effect so as to change the venue of p......
  • Get Started for Free