Williams v. MacKey Motor Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Williams v. MacKey Motor Co.

118 S.W.2d 913, 1938 Tex. App. LEXIS 46

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJuly 7, 1938

DocketNo. 3699.

StatusPublished

This text of 118 S.W.2d 913 (Williams v. MacKey Motor 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

Williams v. MacKey Motor Co., 118 S.W.2d 913, 1938 Tex. App. LEXIS 46 (Tex. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

WALTHALL, Justice.

This appeal is prosecuted by appellant from an order of the District Court of Winkler County overruling his plea of privilege to be sued in Presidio County, the county of his residence.

*914 The controverting affidavit was sufficient. It alleged that the personal property upon which Mackey Motor Company sought to foreclose its lien, or, in the alternative, to recover title and possession, was located in Winkler County. The record showed that Williams claimed under Bozeman, the mortgagor. He was, therefore, a necessary party, for without him complete relief could not be afforded the mortgagee. The injunction sought being merely an ancillary remedy, and there being no appeal from the order granting the temporary injunction,- the propriety of granting that order is not before us. Primarily the suit is for title and possession of the automobile, or, in the alternative, the foreclosure of the mortgage. The judgment of the court was correct. Williams v. First Nat’l Bank of Midland, Tex.Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 1209; Article 1995, R.C.S.1925, Secs. 10 and 29, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St. art. 1995, subds. 10, 29a.

Judgment is affirmed.

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

WALTHALL, Justice.

This appeal is prosecuted by appellant from an order of the District Court of Winkler County overruling his plea of privilege to be sued in Presidio County, the county of his residence.

*914 The controverting affidavit was sufficient. It alleged that the personal property upon which Mackey Motor Company sought to foreclose its lien, or, in the alternative, to recover title and possession, was located in Winkler County. The record showed that Williams claimed under Bozeman, the mortgagor. He was, therefore, a necessary party, for without him complete relief could not be afforded the mortgagee. The injunction sought being merely an ancillary remedy, and there being no appeal from the order granting the temporary injunction,- the propriety of granting that order is not before us. Primarily the suit is for title and possession of the automobile, or, in the alternative, the foreclosure of the mortgage. The judgment of the court was correct. Williams v. First Nat’l Bank of Midland, Tex.Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 1209; Article 1995, R.C.S.1925, Secs. 10 and 29, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St. art. 1995, subds. 10, 29a.

Judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 S.W.2d 913, 1938 Tex. App. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-mackey-motor-co-texapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack