Southwestern Surgical Supply Co. v. Scarborough
Decision Date | 07 March 1929 |
Docket Number | (No. 2284.) |
Citation | 15 S.W.2d 65 |
Parties | SOUTHWESTERN SURGICAL SUPPLY CO. v. SCARBOROUGH. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; Ballard Coldwell, Judge.
Action by the Southwestern Surgical Supply Company against Dr. Walter E. Scarborough, in which defendant filed a plea of privilege. The plea of privilege was sustained, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Isaacks & Lattner, of El Paso, for appellant.
A. T. Folsom, of Wink, for appellee.
On March 1, 1928, appellee purchased from appellant, a partnership, certain chattels consisting of an X-ray unit, a diathermy machine, a Castle combination sterilizer, 12 hospital beds and mattresses, and certain surgical instruments and supplies. The purchase price was $2,334.03, to cover which appellee paid part cash, and executed eleven notes for $150 each, and one for $184.03, all dated March 5, 1928, and payable to appellant. The first note was due one month after date and one matured monthly thereafter. The notes were payable at El Paso, Tex. The payment of the notes was secured by mortgage upon the property sold. The mortgage contained a provision, the effect of which was that, if at any time the payee of the notes felt unsafe or insecure, then at its option appellee could declare all of the notes due and payable.
Later appellant sold to appellee other goods, wares, and merchandise, and upon the purchase price thereof there was a balance due of $825.83 at the time this suit was filed.
This suit was filed July 16, 1928, to recover said balance of $825.83, due upon open account, and also to recover upon the eight notes last maturing; the first four having been paid as they fell due.
It was alleged that plaintiff felt unsafe and insecure and had exercised its option in such case to declare all the notes due as authorized by the mortgage.
Judgment was sought for the amount due upon the open account and notes and for foreclosure of the chattel mortgage.
Appellee filed plea of privilege to be sued in Winkler county, where he resides. The plea is in statutory form with additional allegations to the effect that the notes sued upon were not due; that no ground existed for accelerating maturity; that the allegations respecting the acceleration of their maturity were fraudulent, and suit upon such notes was joined with suit upon the open account for the fraudulent purpose of depriving defendant of his right to be sued upon the open account in the county of his residence.
Controverting affidavit was filed by plaintiffs setting up that the notes were payable in El Paso, the accelerating maturity clause of the mortgage, that plaintiffs felt unsafe and insecure in said indebtedness, and had exercised the option to mature the notes.
Upon hearing the plea of privilege was sustained. Findings of fact were not filed by the trial court.
S. C. Carter, one of the members of the appellant firm, testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bilbo v. Bilbo
... ... v. Glenn, 162 ... N.E. 481, 248 N.Y. 445; Southwestern Surgical Supply Co. v ... Scarborough, 15 S.W.2d 65 ... The ... ...
-
Scott v. Scott, 12654.
...v. Armstrong, Tex.Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 1071; and are not to be denied upon strained constructions thereof. Southwestern Surgical Co. v. Scarborough, Tex. Civ.App., 15 S.W.2d 65. This strict interpretation plainly excludes equitable situations, embracing "all those that may be directly or ind......
-
Batex Oil Co. v. La Brisa Land & Cattle Co.
...venue hearing. Watson v. Baker, 67 Tex. 48, 2 S.W. 375; Thornton v. Thornton, Tex.Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 429; Southwestern Surgical Supply Co. v. Scarborough, Tex.Civ.App., 15 S.W.2d 65; Koch v. Roedenbeck, Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W. 328; Baldwin v. Baldwin, Tex.Civ.App., 233 SW. 130; Pearce v. Wa......
-
Ramey & Mathis v. Page
...141; Price v. Schnaufer, Tex.Civ.App., 79 S.W.2d 872; Phillips v. Terrell, Tex.Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 376; Southwestern Surgical Supply Co. v. Scarborough, tex.Civ.App., 15 S.W.2d 65; Old Lincoln County Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hall, Tex.Civ.App., 214 S.W.2d 203; Richardson v. D. S. Cage Co., 113......