Laukhuf v. Associates Discount Corp.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 17317,17317 |
| Citation | 443 S.W.2d 725 |
| Parties | Alfred LAUKHUF and Raymond Laukhuf, Appellants, v. ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORPORATION, Appellee. . Dallas |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
A. B. Conant, Jr., Shank, Irwin, Conant & Williamson, Dallas, for appellants.
Robert W. Damron, Damron & Cole, Dallas, for appellee.
This is a venue action in which appellants appeal from an order overruling their plea of privilege.
Appellee, Associates Discount Corporation, filed this action in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas against appellants, individually, and d/b/a Wichita Mack Sales, seeking to recover monies due by virtue of the endorsement by appellants of various security agreements, and promissory notes attached thereto, all of such instruments being attached to the original petition. In due time appellants filed their plea of privilege asking that the cause of action be transferred to Wichita County, Texas, the place of their residence. Appellee filed a controverting plea in which it asserted that the cause of action was properly maintainable in Dallas County by virtue of the provisions of subdivision 5, Art. 1995, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. of Texas. The trial court, following a hearing, entered an order overruling the plea of privilege.
The facts are undisputed. Appellants, partners doing business under the name of Wichita Mack Sales, sold motor vehicles to third persons who are not parties to this action. These sales took place during the years 1966 through 1968. Each sale was evidenced by a written security agreement, and, as a part thereof and attached thereto, a promissory note, each instrument being signed by the purchaser of the vehicle. Contemporaneously with the execution of these instruments they were assigned by appellants to appellee Associates Discount Corporation. There were seventeen security agreements and notes. Not all of them are on the same form.
Seven of the instruments are captioned 'Oklahoma Security Agreement' and contain no stipulated place of payment for the truck purchaser. The separate promissory notes attached to such agreements are endorsed by appellants to Associates Discount Corporation 'with recourse'. These seven notes specify no place of payment.
Two of the agreements are captioned 'Colorado Chattel Mortgage' and likewise specify no place of payment and both are assigned to Associates Discount Corporation, the notes being endorsed 'with recourse' to Associates Discount Corporation. No place of payment is specified in these notes.
Four of the agreements are captioned 'Texas Installment Sales Contract' and provide that the truck purchaser will pay the sum specified 'at the office of Associates Discount Corporation at Dallas, Texas'. Each of these is assigned to Associates Discount Corporation by appellants and the promissory notes attached thereto are endorsed 'will full recourse'.
Four of the agreements are in slightly different forms of 'Texas Installment Sales Contract' and contain no separate promissory notes, the same being incorporated within the body of the instrument . These provide for payment by the truck purchaser 'at the office of Associates Discount Corporation at Dallas, Texas' and are assigned 'with recourse' to appellee by appellants.
One exhibit entitled 'continuing Guaranty' is a broad guaranty agreement whereby appellants guarantee to Associates Discount Corporation to fully pay any and all indebtedness which now exists or which may hereafter accrue as the same becomes due. No place of payment is designated in this instrument.
At the time all of these instruments were introduced in evidence before the court on the hearing of the plea of privilege by appellee there was no objection voiced by appellants.
Appellants contend, in one point of error, that the trial court committed error in failing to sustain their plea of privilege to be sued in Wichita County because appellee had failed to demonstrate that the case fell within subdivision 5, Art. 1995, V.A.C.S., which provides that if a person has contracted in writing to perform an obligation in a particular county, expressly naming such county, suit upon or by reason of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gubitosi v. Buddy Schoellkopf Products, Inc.
...in Rost v. First National Bank of Gonzales, 472 S.W.2d 579, 581 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1971, n.w.h.); Laukhuf v. Associates Discount Corporation, 443 S.W.2d 725, 727 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1969, n.w.h.); Walter E. Heller & Co. v. Allen, 412 S.W.2d 712, (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 19......
-
Rutherford v. 6353 Joint Venture
...denied) (mem. op.); Bottoms v. Lyons, 487 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1972, no writ); Laukhuf v. Associates Discount Corp., 443 S.W.2d 725, 727 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1969, no writ) ("The endorsement of the notes, 'with recourse', by appellants to appellee created a legal liabi......
-
Hopkins v. First Nat. Bank at Brownsville
...his argument, however, and held that subdivision applicable. 546 S.W.2d 84. In so holding, the court relied on Laukhuf v. Associates Discount Corp., 443 S.W.2d 725 (Tex.Civ.App.1969, no writ); Carter v. Texas State Bank of Jacksonville, 189 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Civ.App.1945, no writ); and Cullum......
-
Rost v. First Nat. Bank of Gonzales, 645
...in Carter v. Texas State Bank of Jacksonville, 189 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana 1945, n.w.h.); and in Laukhuf v. Associates Discount Corporation, 443 S.W.2d 725 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas 1969, From the cases above cited, it is noted that our courts, in fact situations substantially simil......