Roberts v. Stewart Farm Mortgage Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Roberts v. Stewart Farm Mortgage Co.

226 S.W. 1108, 1921 Tex. App. LEXIS 551

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 12, 1921

DocketNo. 6495.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 226 S.W. 1108 (Roberts v. Stewart Farm Mortgage Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roberts v. Stewart Farm Mortgage Co., 226 S.W. 1108, 1921 Tex. App. LEXIS 551 (Tex. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

FLY, C. J.

Appellants sued to rescind the sale made to them by appellee of certain tracts of land in Hidalgo county, on the ground of fraud on the part of appellee and to obtáin a temporary injunction, restraining the appellee from selling or assigning certain notes given for the purchase money of the land during the pendency of the suit. Appellee is a foreign corporation, but its agent was in Hidalgo county and was served with citation, and appellee appeared in court and attacked the jurisdiction of the court over its person. The court sustained the plea, and held that it could not grant a temporary injunction as to a foreign corporation.

[1] Appellee does not attack the service úpon it, and, if it had, its voluntary appearance in the district court to attack its jurisdiction constituted an appearance, and subjected its person to the jurisdiction of the court. York v. State, 73 Tex. 651, 11 S. W. 869; Banco Minero v. Ross, 106 Tex. 522, 172 S. W. 711.

[2] Fraud was alleged, and when jurisdiction of the person of appellee was obtained appellants had the right under its allegations to have an injunction issued to restrain the transfer or assignment of their promissory notes. Pom. Eq. Jur. §§ 1318, 1340, 1368. The court may or may not be able to enforce its order of restraint, but that the order may not be capable of enforcement cannot enter into the consideration of appellants’ right to the injunction. The injunction should be granted.

[3]_ Where the necessary parties are be fore a court of equity, it is immaterial that the subject of the controversy, whether it be real or personal property, is beyond the *1109 territorial jurisdiction of tlie tribunal. It can compel the defendant to do, according to tbe -les loci rei sitie all that he could do voluntarily to give full effect to the decree against him. Joyce on Injunctions, § 77; Phelps v. McDonald, 99 U. S. 298, 25 L. Ed. 473; Nelson v. Lamm, 147 S. W. 664.

The judgment isi reversed, and cause remanded, with instructions to the district judge to issue the writ applied for by appellants.

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

FLY, C. J.

Appellants sued to rescind the sale made to them by appellee of certain tracts of land in Hidalgo county, on the ground of fraud on the part of appellee and to obtáin a temporary injunction, restraining the appellee from selling or assigning certain notes given for the purchase money of the land during the pendency of the suit. Appellee is a foreign corporation, but its agent was in Hidalgo county and was served with citation, and appellee appeared in court and attacked the jurisdiction of the court over its person. The court sustained the plea, and held that it could not grant a temporary injunction as to a foreign corporation.

[1] Appellee does not attack the service úpon it, and, if it had, its voluntary appearance in the district court to attack its jurisdiction constituted an appearance, and subjected its person to the jurisdiction of the court. York v. State, 73 Tex. 651, 11 S. W. 869; Banco Minero v. Ross, 106 Tex. 522, 172 S. W. 711.

[2] Fraud was alleged, and when jurisdiction of the person of appellee was obtained appellants had the right under its allegations to have an injunction issued to restrain the transfer or assignment of their promissory notes. Pom. Eq. Jur. §§ 1318, 1340, 1368. The court may or may not be able to enforce its order of restraint, but that the order may not be capable of enforcement cannot enter into the consideration of appellants’ right to the injunction. The injunction should be granted.

[3]_ Where the necessary parties are be fore a court of equity, it is immaterial that the subject of the controversy, whether it be real or personal property, is beyond the *1109 territorial jurisdiction of tlie tribunal. It can compel the defendant to do, according to tbe -les loci rei sitie all that he could do voluntarily to give full effect to the decree against him. Joyce on Injunctions, § 77; Phelps v. McDonald, 99 U. S. 298, 25 L. Ed. 473; Nelson v. Lamm, 147 S. W. 664.

The judgment isi reversed, and cause remanded, with instructions to the district judge to issue the writ applied for by appellants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 S.W. 1108, 1921 Tex. App. LEXIS 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-stewart-farm-mortgage-co-texapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack