Sparks v. National Bank of Commerce
| Decision Date | 11 April 1914 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7898.) |
| Citation | 168 S.W. 48 |
| Parties | SPARKS v. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Johnson County Court; J. B. Haynes, Judge.
Action by the National Bank of Commerce against W. T. Sparks and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Sparks appeals. Reversed and dismissed.
Love & Hill, of Uvalde, for appellant. Spence, Knight, Baker & Harris and Geo. S. Wright, all of Dallas, and Walker & Baker, of Cleburne, for appellee.
This case was filed May 19, 1913, by the National Bank of Commerce against H. B. Cox, L. F. Hall, and W. T. Sparks in the county court of Johnson county to recover on a promissory note for the sum of $511.43, dated July 1, 1911, due January 1, 1913. The note was executed by L. F. Hall and W. T. Sparks, was payable to the order of H. B. Cox, and was one of a series of four notes of the same date, for the same amount, signed by the same party, and due, respectively, in 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after date. The note was payable at Crystal City, in Zavalla county, in which county W. T. Sparks resided. Citation was issued May 3, 1913, served June 6, and was returned and filed in the county court of Johnson county July 8, 1913. On April 25, 1913, W. T. Sparks filed suit in the district court of Zavalla county against L. F. Hall, alleging that he was a surety for said Hall on all of the said notes, that as such surety he had paid the first note of the series, and that he had theretofore given notice to the National Bank of Commerce of his suretyship, requesting it to sue, as required by statute, but that it had refused to do so, and that Hall and Cox (the payee) had refused to pay said notes, and in such suit asked for equitable relief against Hall, and that he be relieved of all liability as surety as against the National Bank of Commerce, which was made a party to that suit. Citation was issued in the Zavalla county suit and was served on the National Bank of Commerce April 28, 1913. In answer to the bank's suit in Johnson county, Sparks pleaded in abatement the pendency of the Zavalla county suit and his privilege under the statute to be sued in that county. These pleas were heard by the court and overruled. Sparks then answered, and judgment was rendered against all of the defendants, and Sparks has appealed.
We will notice only one question, which, under the view we take of the case, is decisive of the appeal, and that is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleveland v. Ward
...v. Morrison (Tex. Civ. App.) 163 S. W. 119; Camp v. First Nat. Bank of Alpine (Tex. Civ. App.) 195 S. W. 217; Sparks v. National Bank of Commerce (Tex. Civ. App.) 168 S. W. 48; Foster v. Wells, 4 Tex. 101, 103; Freeman v. McAninch, 87 Tex. 132, 27 S. W. 97, 47 Am. St. Rep. 79; Nichols v. Di......
-
Priddy v. Business Men's Oil Co.
...of Civil Appeals hold to the above rule as prevailing in Texas. Goggan v. Morrison (Tex. Civ. App.) 163 S. W. 119; Sparks v. National Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 168 S. W. 48; Lumber Co. v. Williamson (Tex. Civ. App.) 164 S. W. 442; Cattlemen's Trust Co. v. Blasingame (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 5......
-
Long v. Long
...Morrison (Tex. Civ. App.) 163 S. W. 120; Miller & Vidor Lbr. Co. v. Williamson (Tex. Civ. App.) 164 S. W. 440; Sparks v. National Bank of Commerce (Tex. Civ. App.) 168 S. W. 48; Camp v. First National Bank (Tex. Civ App.) 195 S. W. 217; Phillips v. Phillips (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 243; W......
-
Fulmore v. Benson
...in abatement of the pendency of another suit between the parties. Goggan v. Morrison (Tex. Civ. App.) 163 S. W. 119; Sparks v. Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 168 S. W. 48; Miller v. Williamson (Tex. Civ. App.) 164 S. W. 440; Cattlemen's Trust Co. v. Blasingame (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 574; Br......