Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Craddock
Decision Date | 27 February 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 7259.)<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 174 S.W. 965 |
Parties | MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. v. CRADDOCK. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Grayson County; W. J. Mathis, Judge.
Action by B. W. Craddock against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
C. C. Huff, of Dallas, and Head, Dillard, Smith, Maxey & Head, of Sherman, for appellant. Wolfe & Wood, of Sherman, for appellee.
Appellee sued appellant to recover damages for malicious prosecution alleged to have been made by an agent of appellant at Parsons, Kan. Appellant presented a plea in abatement, denied generally the allegations in plaintiff's petition, denied the agency of the party inflicting the alleged wrongs, pleaded limitation, the existence of probable cause, and advice of counsel. The case was submitted to the jury on special issues, and, upon return of answers thereto, the court entered a verdict for plaintiff for $14,500, from which this appeal is taken.
Appellee's amended petition alleges that he is a resident citizen of the state of New Mexico, and that appellant is a private corporation incorporated under the laws of Kansas, and states his cause of action as follows:
The evidence substantially established the allegations of the petition.
Appellant complains: First, on the ground that the court overruled its plea in abatement, and presents the following proposition:
"Comity does not require and the courts of Texas will not exercise jurisdiction over a civil suit of a citizen of a foreign state, arising in a foreign state, out of a violation of the criminal laws of a foreign state, by a corporation of such foreign state, when the exercise of such jurisdiction will deprive the foreign corporation of defenses it would have in the state of its residence, when no good reason exists for prosecuting the suit in this state instead of the state in which it arose, and where the courts of the state where the cause of action arose would decline to entertain jurisdiction of the suit of a citizen of Texas under like circumstances."
Appellee's petition alleged that he was a citizen of New Mexico, and that defendant was "duly incorporated under the laws of the state of Kansas, owning and operating many lines of railway, some of which entered into the state of Texas, where it has a local agent, to wit, W. A. King, residing and representing it in Grayson county." Appellant's agent was duly served in Grayson county, and "there is nothing in the record of this case calling in question the sufficiency of the service of citation on appellant to require it to appear and answer this suit."
The action pleaded by appellee is transitory in its nature, and can be prosecuted in any court obtaining jurisdiction of the defendant. Railway Co. v. Godair, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 298, 87 S. W. 871; Railway Co. v. Keller, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 358, 76 S. W. 801; Railway Co. v. Smith, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 612, 79 S. W. 340; Banco Minero v. Ross, 172 S. W. 711.
In this case the district court of Grayson county, Tex., had jurisdiction. The appellant had a local agent residing in said county, upon whom service was duly had, and, having jurisdiction, it properly proceeded to adjudicate the same. In Railway Co. v. Godair, supra, the court said:
"We think it a correct proposition of law that liability in a transitory action may be enforced, and the right of action pursued, in the courts of any state which can obtain jurisdiction of the defendant, without regard to where the wrongdoer or the person injured resided, or where the injury was inflicted; and it has been practically so held."
In Banco Minero v. Ross, supra, lately decided by our Supreme Court, it is said, in speaking of the action:
There is no such dissimilarity between the laws of Kansas and the laws of Texas that trying the case in Texas would deprive appellant of any substantial right.
The plea in abatement was properly overruled.
The second assignment of error is that the court erred in overruling defendant's special exception, which was, in effect, that the petition showed it to be an action for libel, and was barred by one year's limitation. The exception was leveled at that part of the petition which alleged, in effect, that he had been charged by defendant with burglary and theft, etc.; that he was damaged in reputation, character and fair name, etc., thereby. These allegations partake of a cause of action for libel and slander, but, when the acts charged are joined with charges for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and assault as growing out of one continuous transaction, they are permissible, and are controlled by the law governing actions for malicious, false imprisonment, etc. Kleinsmith v. Hamlin, 60 S. W. 994; Railway Co. v. Griffin, 48 S. W. 542. The petitions show appellee to have been acquitted of the charges in the prosecution by the Kansas court, and within 12 months thereafter he filed his suit to recover damages for malicious prosecution; hence limitation had not run, and there was no error in overruling the exception.
The third and fourth assignments of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Foster v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
...Ill. App. 173; Ry. Co. v. Talbot, 131 Ind. 221; Rawson v. Leggitt, 90 N.Y. Supp. 5; Luthmers v. Hazel, 212 Ill. App. 207; Railway Co. v. Craddock (Tex.), 174 S.W. 965; Sutherland on Damages (4 Ed.) secs. 1234, 1235; Ross v. Innis, 35 Ill. 487; Minter v. Bradstreet, 174 Mo. HIGBEE, C. On Apr......
-
Polk v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co.
...112, 330 Mo. 343; Irons v. American Ry. Exp. Co., 318 Mo. 318, 300 S.W. 283; Luthmers v. Hazel, 212 Ill.App. l. c. 207; M.-K.-T. R. Co. v. Craddock, 174 S.W. 965; Foster v. C., B. & Q. R. Co., 14 S.W.2d Lyons v. St. Joseph B. Ry. Co., 84 S.W.2d 933; Walker v. St. Joseph B. Ry. Co., 102 S.W.......
-
Foster v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co.
... ... 1202 James A. Foster v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company and Frank Vest, Appellants No. 26782 Supreme Court of Missouri March 2, 1929 ... Motion ... for Rehearing Overruled December 18, 1928 ... Motion ... to Transfer to Banc ... Co. v. Talbot, ... 131 Ind. 221; Rawson v. Leggitt, 90 N.Y.S. 5; ... Luthmers v. Hazel, 212 Ill.App. 207; Railway Co ... v. Craddock (Tex.), 174 S.W. 965; Sutherland on Damages ... (4 Ed.) secs. 1234, 1235; Ross v. Innis, 35 Ill ... 487; Minter v. Bradstreet, 174 Mo. 444 ... ...
-
Polk v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co.
...(2d) 112, 330 Mo. 343; Irons v. American Ry. Exp. Co., 318 Mo. 318, 300 S.W. 283; Luthmers v. Hazel, 212 Ill. App. l.c. 207; M.-K.-T.R. Co. v. Craddock, 174 S.W. 965; Foster v. C., B. & Q.R. Co., 14 S.W. (2d) 561; Lyons v. St. Joseph B. Ry. Co., 84 S.W. (2d) 933; Walker v. St. Joseph B. Ry.......