Crawford v. Carothers

Texas Supreme Court

Crawford v. Carothers

18 S.W. 500, 66 Tex. 199, 1886 Tex. LEXIS 480

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedMay 7, 1886

DocketCase No. 5789

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 18 S.W. 500 (Crawford v. Carothers) 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

Crawford v. Carothers, 18 S.W. 500, 66 Tex. 199, 1886 Tex. LEXIS 480 (Tex. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Robertson, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff’s suit was founded in part upon two written contracts, and the defendant’s plea of privilege did not deny that he had not engaged in both to pay the sums sued for in Travis county. According to previous decisions of this court the omission of this averment was fatal to the defendant’s plea. Breen v. Railway Company, 44 Tex., 302; Stark v. Whitman, 58 Tex., 375; Railway Company v. Graves, 50 Tex., 181. But the court is urged to revise the ruling in those cases. That is wholly unnecessary in this, as the defendant’s plea is bad by any rule. The venue was laid in Travis county in the original petition, upon an allegation that the defendant resided in that county. That averment is not denied in the plea. The plea states that the defendant was an inhabitant of Waller county at the date of the institution of the suit. He might have been a resident of both counties. Brown v. Bouldon, 18 Tex., 431.

The only assignment of error briefed is that complaining of the ruling of the district court upon the demurrer to the plea. That ruling was proper and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

[Opinion delivered May 7, 1886.]

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

Robertson, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff’s suit was founded in part upon two written contracts, and the defendant’s plea of privilege did not deny that he had not engaged in both to pay the sums sued for in Travis county. According to previous decisions of this court the omission of this averment was fatal to the defendant’s plea. Breen v. Railway Company, 44 Tex., 302; Stark v. Whitman, 58 Tex., 375; Railway Company v. Graves, 50 Tex., 181. But the court is urged to revise the ruling in those cases. That is wholly unnecessary in this, as the defendant’s plea is bad by any rule. The venue was laid in Travis county in the original petition, upon an allegation that the defendant resided in that county. That averment is not denied in the plea. The plea states that the defendant was an inhabitant of Waller county at the date of the institution of the suit. He might have been a resident of both counties. Brown v. Bouldon, 18 Tex., 431.

The only assignment of error briefed is that complaining of the ruling of the district court upon the demurrer to the plea. That ruling was proper and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

[Opinion delivered May 7, 1886.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 S.W. 500, 66 Tex. 199, 1886 Tex. LEXIS 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-carothers-tex-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack