Keabadour v. Weir

20 Tex. 254
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1857·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Hemphill, Ch. J.

From the obvious and rational construction of the language of the petition, it would appear that the defendant Keabadour was a resident of the county of Colorado, and his plea in abatement (suit having been brought in the county of Gonzales) should have been sustained. Any other meaning [256] would be forced and unnatural; and as no important right would be defeated by adhering to the grammatical and reasonable construction, we are of opinion that for the error alone of overruling the plea to the jurisdiction the judgment must be reversed. The other rulings on the exceptions to the answer of the defendant are believed to have been in the main correct. But for the error specified above, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Keabadour v. Weir, 20 Tex. 254 (Tex. 1857).

20 Tex. 254 (Keabadour v. Weir) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kaliski v. Gray
28 S.W.2d 931 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
First Nat. Bank of Detroit v. Skidmore
267 S.W. 1051 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Surghenor v. Ranger
133 F. 453 (Fifth Circuit, 1904)
McClelland v. Barnard
81 S.W. 591 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1904)
Taylor v. Ferguson
26 S.W. 46 (Texas Supreme Court, 1894)
Turman v. Robertson
3 Willson 262 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1886)
Baines v. Baker
60 Tex. 139 (Texas Supreme Court, 1883)