Case ID: sw_140/html/0119-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FLY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HURD v. INGLEHART.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
    Oct. 11, 1911.)
    1. Couets (§ 7) — Actions—Venue.
    The maker of a note may be sued thereon in the county of his residence, though the note be payable in another state.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 7.]
    2. Amicus Curle (§ 3) — Exceptions by— Effect.
    Exceptions filed by amici curiae may be disregarded.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Amicus Curiae, 'Cent. Dig. §§ 3-5; Dec. Dig. § 3.]
    3. Amicus Curl® (§ 3) — Exceptions by— Effect.
    Exceptions filed by amici curiae cannot be treated as exceptions filed by defendant on his appeal, and, unless jurisdictional, cannot be considered.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Amicus Curiae, Cent. Dig. §§ 3-5; Dec. Dig. § 3.]
    Appeal from District Court, Matagorda County; Wells Thompson, Judge.
    Action by J. C. Inglehart against B. D. Hurd. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Gaines & Corbett, for appellant. Richard R. Lewis, for appellee.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   FLY, J.

This is a suit on a promissory note for $5,885.29, executed by appellant to appellee, payable in Kansas City, Mo., which upon a trial resulted in a judgment for ap-pellee for the amount claimed by him.

Appellant resided at the time the suit was instituted and tried in Matagorda county, Tex., but amici curiae attacked tbe jurisdiction of tbe court on tbe ground that tbe note sued upon was payable in Kansas Oity, Mo. Tbe exceptions to tbe action on that ground were overruled. No authority is cited sustaining appellant’s position, and clearly under our statute tbe district court of Matagorda county bad jurisdiction of the matter in controversy and tbe person of appellant. Appellee could have sued on bis claim in Kansas City, but be undoubtedly bad the right to sue in tbe county of tbe residence of appellant. Tbe suit in that county secured to appellant all tbe rights and privileges of being sued at home, which are usually prized by defendants, and which are jealously guarded by tbe laws of Texas.

Tbe exceptions seem to have been presented to tbe court through attorneys describing themselves as amici curice, a position they were allowed to assume only through the grace and leniency of tbe court, and the court might have declined to entertain any exceptions filed by them. State v. Jefferson Iron Co., 60 Tex. 312; Jones v. Jefferson, 66 Tex. 576, 1 S. W. 903.

However, they were beard, but tbe exceptions voluntarily filed by them cannot be treated as exceptions 'filed by appellant, and, unless it is a jurisdictional matter, it can’not be considered. Andrews v. Beck, 23 Tex. 455; Moseby v. Burrow, 52 Tex. 396. We know of no law or decision which tends to support tbe contention that where a contract, evidenced by a promissory note, is to be performed in a certain place, even though in another state, that tbe maker thereof cannot be sued in tbe county of bis residence.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.