Crawford v. Carothers
| Decision Date | 07 May 1886 |
| Citation | 18 S.W. 500 |
| Parties | CRAWFORD v. CAROTHERS.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
T. S. Reese and Harvey & Brown, for plaintiff in error. S. A. Posey and D. W. Doom, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff's suit was founded in part upon two written contracts, and the defendant's plea of privilege did not deny that he had not engaged in both to pay the sums sued for in Travis county. According to previous decisions of this court, the omission of this averment was fatal to the defendant's plea. Breen v. Railway Co., 44 Tex. 302; Stark v. Whitman, 58 Tex. 375; Railway Co. v. Graves, 50 Tex. 181. But the court is urged to revise the ruling in those cases. That is wholly unnecessary in this, as the defendant's plea is bad by any rule. The venue was laid in Travis county in the original petition, upon an allegation that the defendant resided in that county. That averment is not denied in the plea. The plea states that the defendant was an inhabitant of Waller county at the date of the institution of the suit. He might have been a resident of both counties. Brown v. Boulden, 18 Tex. 431. The only assignment of error briefed is that complaining of the ruling of the district court upon the demurrer to the plea. That ruling was proper, and the judgment is affirmed.
1. This case, filed May 7, 1886, is now published by request, with others, in order that the Southwestern Reporter may cover all cases in volume 66, Texas Reports.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snyder v. Pitts
...its technical meaning without reference to Brown v. Boulden, Wilson v. Bridgeman, or Tucker v. Anderson. In 1886 in Crawford v. Carothers, 66 Tex. 199, 18 S.W. 500, the Supreme Court ignored Blucher v. Milsted and returned to Brown v. Boulden in holding that a defendant may have a residence......
-
Eppenauer v. Schrup
...opinion has been followed by the Supreme Court with approval in the following cases: Wilson v. Bridgeman, 24 Tex. 615; Crawford v. Carothers, 66 Tex. 199, 18 S.W. 500; Pearson v. West, 97 Tex. 238, 77 S.W. 944; Taylor v. Wilson, 99 Tex. 651, 93 S.W. 109; Pittsburg Water Heater Co. v. Sulliv......
-
Tignor v. Toney
...because it does not allege that Ellis did not reside in Waller county. Boothe v. Fiest, 80 Tex. 144, 15 S. W. 799; Crawford v. Carothers, 66 Tex. 199, 18 S. W. 500. The plea undertakes to negative all the exceptions mentioned in the statute to the rule requiring the defendant to be sued in ......
-
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Rogers
...thing, and that there may be a difference between a man's residence and his domicile. Brown v. Boulden, 18 Tex. 434, and Crawford v. Carothers, 66 Tex. 200, 18 S. W. 500, were cited in support of the conclusion reached. In the latter case exceptions were sustained to a plea of privilege bec......