TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McFadden, Weiss, Kyle Rice Milling Co. v. Ardis

McFadden, Weiss, Kyle Rice Milling Co. v. Ardis.

McFadden, Weiss v. Ardis, 167 S.W. 5 (Tex. App. 1914)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 25, 1914
Docket
No. 7152.
Judges
Rainey
Citations
167 S.W. 51914 Tex. App. LEXIS 452
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Venue (§ 27*) — Privilege oe Deeendant — Assignment oe Claim. Where a claim for breach of contract was assigned to plaintiff for a. valuable consideration, his assignor guaranteeing payment, the denial of defendant’s plea of privilege to be sued in the county of its residence, rather than that of the residence of plaintiff and his assignor, was not error. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Venue, Cent. Dig. § 41; Dec. Dig. § 27.*]
Summary
Appeal from Kaufman County Court; James A. Cooley, Judge. Action by L. H. Ardis against the McFadden, Weiss, Kyle Rice Milling Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, the named defendant appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Rainey

Conclusions.

RAINEY, C. J.

Appellant, a corporation, whose office and place of business was in Beaumont, Jefferson county, Tex., contracted with J. M. Carter, a resident citizen of Kaufman county, Tex., to ship him from Beaumont ten cars of bran. Eight cars were shipped by appellant to Carter, but appellant refused to ship the two remaining cars, and Carter claimed damages in the sum of $110, which appellant refused to pay, claiming that the eight cars contained the amount contracted for. Carter transferred his claim against appellant for a valuable consideration to L. H. Ardis, also a citizen of Kaufman county, and guaranteed the payment of the claim.

Ardis brought this suit in Kaufman county against J. M. Carter and appellant on said claim. Appellant interposed a plea of privilege to be sued in the county of its residence, which is Jefferson, and pleaded subject to said plea of privilege that it had complied with the terms of said contract.

A trial was had before the court without a jury, and a judgment rendered by the court overruling said plea of privilege, and against appellant and Carter for the amount of said claim. The milling company alone appeals.

1. We conclude on the plea of privilege that, the lower court having found that Carter transferred the claim to Ardis for a valuable consideration, and that he had guaranteed its payment, we do not feel justified in the state of the evidence in holding that he committed error. McCoy v. Pafford, 150 S. W. 968 .

2. On the merits of the ease we conclude-that the evidence warrants the rendition of judgment in favor of plaintiff, and it is affirmed.

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
McCoy v. Pafford, 150 S.W. 968 (Tex. App. 1912) 3

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