Coffee v. Haynes

24 Tex. 190
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 24 Tex. 190 (Coffee v. Haynes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Coffee v. Haynes, 24 Tex. 190 (Tex. 1859).

Opinion

Roberts, J.

The general rule is, that an inhabitant of the state, must be sued in the county of his residence. The tenth exception to this rule, is “ in cases for foreclosure of mortgages, in which cases, suit may be instituted in the courts where the mortgaged property, or any part therof, may be.” This does not include, the case of a suit to enforce the vendor’s lien. They are two very distinct species of liens upon property; and although the reason for making the vendor’s lien an exception, might seem to be as good as for a mortgage, it does not follow that the statute, by including one species of lien, also included the other. We think, therefore, the court erred in sustaining the exception to the plea of privilege, filed in this case. (O. & W. Dig. 111, Art. 401.) Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Crosby v. Bonnowsky
69 S.W. 212 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1902)
Thomas, Pusey & Co. v. Jones
41 Tex. 265 (Texas Supreme Court, 1874)
Hays v. Stone
36 Tex. 181 (Texas Supreme Court, 1872)
Cowan v. Nixon
28 Tex. 230 (Texas Supreme Court, 1866)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 Tex. 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffee-v-haynes-tex-1859.