Matlock v. Smith

• Decision Date: 09 February 1903
• Citation: 71 S.W. 956
• Parties: MATLOCK et al. v. SMITH, District Judge.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

71 S.W. 956

MATLOCK et al. v. SMITH, District Judge.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 9, 1903.

Application by Matlock, Miller & Dycus for mandamus against M. E. Smith, district judge, to compel the dismissal of a suit against the San Jacinto Oil Company, and for the discharge of a receiver appointed therefor. Application denied.

A. M. Carter, for relators.

GAINES, C. J.

This is a motion to file a petition for a mandamus against the district judge of the Seventeenth judicial district of the state. The following is a brief statement of the facts alleged in the petition: The relators are bona fide holders of 1,043 shares of the capital stock of the San Jacinto Oil Company, a corporation organized under the laws of this state, and having its principal office in Dallas county. On the 14th day of January, 1902, the Texas Cotton Products Company, also a corporation, brought suit against the San Jacinto Company in the district court of the Seventeenth judicial district, sitting at Ft. Worth, in Tarrant county, for the recovery of an alleged indebtedness of $700, and prayed the appointment of a receiver of the property of the defendant company. Thereupon the respondent, as judge of the court, set down the application for the appointment of a receiver for a hearing on the 16th day of January, 1903. On the day last named, the plaintiff in the suit filed an amended petition, and the defendant corporation, through its attorneys, voluntarily appeared and filed an answer, but failed to plead its privilege of being sued in the county of Dallas. On the same day the application for a receiver was granted, and receiver appointed. On the 24th day of the same month the relators, as stockholders in the defendant corporation, by leave of the court intervened in the suit, and tendered to the attorney for the plaintiff the sum of $800 for the purpose of paying off the debt and costs of the suit. The attorney, although admitting that the sum was sufficient, declined to accept the tender; and the interveners paid the sum into court, and, having pleaded the fact, prayed that the cause be dismissed and the receiver discharged. The court declined at the time to rule upon the motion, and meanwhile other creditors and stockholders intervened in the suit, and prayed that the receivership be continued. Thereafter, on the 28th day of the same month, the relators presented to this court their original petition for a mandamus to compel the respondent to dismiss the cause,...