Wilson v. Bridgeman

• Decision Date: 01 January 1860
• Citation: 24 Tex. 615
• Parties: THOMAS WILSON v. W. P. BRIDGEMAN AND ANOTHER.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

24 Tex. 615

THOMAS WILSON

v.W. P. BRIDGEMAN AND ANOTHER.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1860.

To support a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, because of the non-residence of the defendant in the county in which the suit is brought, if he claim to have removed from that, and to have acquired a residence in another county, it must appear, that the change had been effected, and such residence acquired, at the time of the institution of the suit.

The rule laid down in Brown v. Boulden, 18 Tex. 431, upon the questions of the residence of the defendant, and the jurisdiction of the court, as dependent thereon, cited and approved. 18 Tex. 431.

ERROR from Calhoun. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones.

This was a suit brought in the district court of Calhoun county on the 17th of March, 1858, by William P. Bridgeman and E. M. Day against Thomas Wilson, on a note for $372.18. The defendant was served with process, in that county, on the 25th of March, 1858.

At the fall term of the court the defendant pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court, alleging that, at the time of the institution of the suit, he was not a citizen or resident of the said county, but then was, and had ever since been, a citizen of, and had resided in, the county of Live Oak.

In support of this plea the defendant proved that he was absent from Lavaca a great deal of his time for a year past; that he was clerk of the district court of Live Oak county, and was acting as such during the session of that court in April, 1858; that he had been appointed by the judge of the district court to fill an unexpired term in the said clerkship. He proved, also, that his mother lived in Lavaca, and that he had formerly been in business there, but had closed it up and had not been in business in Calhoun county since the fall of the year 1857.

The plaintiff proved that the defendant had been elected an alderman of the city of Lavaca, in the county of Calhoun, at the election of city officers in October, 1857, for the term of one year; that he acted in that capacity up to October, 1858, when he sat with the mayor, and some of the other aldermen, to hold the election of city officers for the ensuing year. Also, that when in Lavaca, he occupied and slept in a room in town and not at his mother's house; that he was one of the street committee for the year 1857, and acted with the other commissioners, after the institution of this suit, inspecting and receiving over, on the streets, under contracts previously made. The plaintiffs also proved an admission made by the defendant to a witness, at the spring term, 1858, of the district court of Calhoun county, that he was a citizen of the latter county and not of Live Oak county; and that the defendant, when served with process by the sheriff...