TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fulenwider v. King

Fulenwider v. King.

Fulenwider v. King, 289 S.W. 104 (Tex. App. 1926)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 10, 1926
Docket
No. 7627.
Judges
Cobbs
Citations
289 S.W. 104

Opinion of the Court — Cobbs

COBBS, J.

Appellee sued appellant, a resident of Uvalde county, in the county court of Bexar county, on a breach of a written account; the “contract being one in which the defendant, Robert Eulenwider,’ sold to the plaintiff one car of good, sound, sweet, number 1 or better cane' hay, which the plaintiff agreed to handle to the best advantage, said contract to be performed in San Antonio, Tex., * * * that he has been damaged by defendant’s breach of said contract” in the sum of $148.83. The particulars in which the breach occurred are not stated.

The appellant, Robert Fulenwider, duly filed his plea of personal privilege demanding his right to be sued in Uvalde county, the place of his residence. The appellee filed a counter affidavit, claiming that the cause was properly filed in Bexar county upon a written contract, where the venue existed.

On a hearing of the issues so raised, the court held that the venue was in Bexar county and overruled the plea of privilege. Upon an examination of all the facts, we hold they support the judgment of the court as to venue. The authorities are so plain in support .of the court’s ruling we shall not discuss them.

Appellee purchased from appellant certain good, sound, sweet hay which was to be shipped to San Antonio and to be paid for by draft at the Alamo National Bank in San Antonio, Tex. Appellant drew his draft on appellee for $142.87 and attached an invoice for one bale of hay, which was paid by ap-pellee.

As to whether there was a breach of the contract in the failure to ship the quantity or quality of the hay is not important here now to decide, since all the hay in question was purchased under one and the same contract, and the question of law, to be determined on the facts found by the court to sustain the venue, was correctly decided.

Seeing no error in the ruling, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list