Winter v. Terrill

Court of Appeals of Texas

Winter v. Terrill

94 S.W. 173, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 598, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 325

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 14, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 94 S.W. 173 (Winter v. Terrill) 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

Winter v. Terrill, 94 S.W. 173, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 598, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 325 (Tex. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

The court erred in sustaining exceptions to the petition and dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction. According to the allegations, a fraud had been perpetrated on appellants in Jones County by the agent of appellee, who resided in Dallas County. The case, we think, comes clearly within the seventh exception provided for in article 1194 of the Revised Statutes. (Hunt County Oil Co. v. Scott, 67 S. W. Rep., 451.)

We are also inclined, to the opinion that it comes within the ninth exception provided for in said article, since the petition in addition to alleging fraud, seems to have alleged a trespass in Jones County as the foundation of the action. The drugs which appellant D. C. Winter, wife of appellant G. W. Winter, is alleged to have been induced, through the fraud of appellee’s agent, to accept and use in the treatment of a disease affecting her ears, and which it is alleged materially and permanently impaired her hearing and caused her severe pain, were sent by appellee from his residence in Dallas to appellants’ residence in J ones County and there used by appellants on the faith of the false and fraudulent representations made by the agent of appellee in that county.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

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

STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

The court erred in sustaining exceptions to the petition and dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction. According to the allegations, a fraud had been perpetrated on appellants in Jones County by the agent of appellee, who resided in Dallas County. The case, we think, comes clearly within the seventh exception provided for in article 1194 of the Revised Statutes. (Hunt County Oil Co. v. Scott, 67 S. W. Rep., 451.)

We are also inclined, to the opinion that it comes within the ninth exception provided for in said article, since the petition in addition to alleging fraud, seems to have alleged a trespass in Jones County as the foundation of the action. The drugs which appellant D. C. Winter, wife of appellant G. W. Winter, is alleged to have been induced, through the fraud of appellee’s agent, to accept and use in the treatment of a disease affecting her ears, and which it is alleged materially and permanently impaired her hearing and caused her severe pain, were sent by appellee from his residence in Dallas to appellants’ residence in J ones County and there used by appellants on the faith of the false and fraudulent representations made by the agent of appellee in that county.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.W. 173, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 598, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winter-v-terrill-texapp-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack