Citizens' State Bank v. Alexander

• Decision Date: 06 June 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 9399.)
• Citation: 274 S.W. 184
• Parties: CITIZENS' STATE BANK et al. v. ALEXANDER.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 184

274 S.W. 184

CITIZENS' STATE BANK et al. v. ALEXANDER.

(No. 9399.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

June 6, 1925.

Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Louis Wilson, Judge.

Action by Gertrude Alexander against the Citizens' State Bank and others. From an order overruling pleas of privilege, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

Gresham & Willis, of Dallas, for appellants.

Read, Lowrance & Bates, of Dallas, for appellee.

LOONEY, J.

This appeal is from an order of the trial court, overruling the pleas of privilege interposed by plaintiffs in error.

The case out of which these proceedings arise is the same from which an appeal to this court was prosecuted from a similar order, styled Alexander v. Alexander, reported in 265 S. W. 1072. A satisfactory statement of the nature of the main suit and of the issues involved will be found in the opinion of this court in the report of the case just mentioned.

It seems that during the pendency of the suit Samuel Alexander, the resident defendant, transferred to each of the plaintiffs in error, as collateral security, a part of the bank stock, for the recovery of which the suit was instituted. After these transactions, Samuel Alexander died, leaving as his only heirs at law three minor children, to wit, Gertrude Alexander (plaintiff herein), Walton Alexander, and Josephine Alexander.

These facts where set up by plaintiff in an amended petition, in which she made Walton and Josephine Alexander, alleged to reside in Dallas county, and the two banking corporations, alleged to have their domicile in Travis county, defendants.

The plaintiffs in error filed pleas asserting their privilege to be sued in Travis, the county of their domicile. These pleas were contested by defendant in error and, on hearing, were overruled by the court, from which order this appeal is prosecuted.

Plaintiffs in error having acquired from Samuel Alexander, during the pendency of the suit, the interests they now claim in the bank stock, will hold the same under the rule of lis pendens; that is to say, subject to the adjudication by the court as to the rights of the defendant in error. Although plaintiffs in error may not be considered necessary parties, unquestionably they are proper parties to the suit, and may be sued out of the county of their residence under exception 4 to article 1830, Revised Statutes, provided they are sued in connection with a resident defendant properly joined in the suit.

This suit is sought to be maintained in Dallas county under exception 4 to article 1830, on the theory that the suit was properly revived after the death of Samuel Alexander, by making his two minor children and heirs at law, residents of Dallas county, defendants in his stead, and that plaintiffs in error are either necessary or proper parties to the suit. As we have just stated, it satisfactorily appears that plaintiffs in error are proper parties to the suit, but the...