Case Name: Francisco Armendiaz v. Maria Antonia de la Serna
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1874
Citations: 40 Tex. 291
Docket Number: 
Parties: Francisco Armendiaz v. Maria Antonia de la Serna.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 291–306

Head Matter:
Francisco Armendiaz v. Maria Antonia de la Serna.
1. On demurrer to a petition the court will determine its sufficiency by the law of the State.
2. Foreign laws must be averred and proved as facts.
3. It is error to dismiss a petition on demurrer for insufficiency under the laws of Mexico, the alleged residence of the parties, and where the alleged contract sued on was executed.
On Rehearing.
4. A plea to the jurisdiction alleging the non-residence of the parties, and that the defendant had no assets in the State, not contradicted on the record, held to be good, and the action overruling it erroneous.
5. That garnishees had not answered as to their indebtedness to the defendant, and that a suit was pending by defendant against a resident of the State, who, in his answer as garnishee, had denied owing defendant, do not rebut the denial of assets made in the plea to the jurisdiction.
6. This court will not examine a record in another suit to ascertain an important fact which should be shown in the record under consideration.
7. If a cause of action appear under the laws of the forum, the demurrer thereto should be overruled.
8. In the absence of allegation and proof of a foreign law as a fact, the law of the forum will govern.
0. If a petition allege the terms of a foreign law, on demurrer the court will regard the allegations as to the foreign law admitted.
10. Protest and notice are not required by the laws of Texas or commercial law to charge the drawer when it is shown that he had no funds, or had drawn without authority.
11. Courts will not ordinarily regard the revenue laws of a foreign State as affecting a contract sought to be enforced by parties within their jurisdiction.
Error from Cameron. Tried below before the Hon. W. H. Russell.
This is a suit on a bill of exchange for $5,016.90, drawn by the defendant at Soto de la Marina, in Mexico, on the fifteenth of June, 1865, on one Diego de la Lastra, of Tampico, in favor of Ysmael Rodriguez as agent and attorney in fact of the plaintiff.
The case was dismissed in the court below in pursuance of its ruling sustaining two causes of special demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition and amended petition, together with his refusal to further amend.
The causes of demurrer and special exception sustained, by the court are ás follows :
“ 6. That the said instrument set out in the petition ap pears to have been executed in the Republic of Mexico, and it does not appear that the same was executed on the sealed or stamped paper required by the laws of the said Republic in order to be a valid instrument in law.”
“8. The said amended petition, as well as the original petition, does not set out that the said draft was protested for non-acceptance, or protested for non-payment, with notice of such protests to defendant, or any other person interested in said draft, and in order to fix the liability of this defendant therein ; wherefore, by the laws of Mexico, where said draft was drawn and made payable, the said draft cannot be sued upon.”
The judgment sustaining the foregoing grounds of demurrer was made without proof of what was the law of Mexico upon the subject.
The plaintiff thereupon filed a motion and supplemental motion to set aside the judgment sustaining the above stated grounds of special demurrer or exception, for the reasons therein set forth.
On this motion being called up, it was objected by the defendant that it could not be entertained, by virtue of Rule 5 for the District Courts, adopted by this court May 3, 1871. The court sustained the objection of the defendant, and refused to entertain the plaintiff’s motion or hear the proofs offered in support of the same.
Frank E. McManus, for plaintiff in error.
The court erred in its ruling based upon the -alleged foreign law without proof of what that law was. (1 Greenleaf, Secs. 486-488; Bryant v. Kelton, 1 Texas, 434; Crosby v. Huston, 1 Texas, 303.)
It is further submitted, that the court below erred in the harsh construction given to the fifth of the rules for the District Courts. It was not designed by that rule to interpose an impassable barrier to the assertion of a legal right in any of the modes authorized by law or sane tioned by the practice and usages of courts of law and equity.
The court below had not “pronounced its opinion” upon the motion to set aside and overrule a previous interlocutory judgment on the ground of alleged error, which was a new proceeding in the case, but declined to entertain the motion, or to listen to evidence in support thereof designed to point out that error.
To justify the judgment of the court below in sustaining the third ground of special demurrer, it should not only have been proved that by the general law of Mexico relating to bills of exchange the failure to protest and give notice to the drawer was fatal to plaintiff’s cause of action, but that the circumstances connected with the drawing of the bill sued on did not place this bill within the exceptions to the general laws dispensing with protest and notice, which are in force not only in Mexico, but in this State and in all civilized countries. One of those causes which excuse or justify a failure to protest or give notice arises where the drawer is without funds in the hands of the drawee — a controlling circumstance in the present case — against proof of which the ruling of the court below has shut the door. (Story on Bills, Secs. 275-280; Parson’s Mer. Law, p. 118; Byles on Bills, p. 148; Spanish Mer. Code, Arts. 490, 453, 484; Mexican Code, Art. 382; 1 Pardessus Traite du Contrat et des Lettres de Change, par. 406, p. 376; Thatcher v. Mills, 14 Texas, 16; Wood v. McMeans, 23 Texas, 484.)
A reversal of the judgment of the court below is asked—
1. Because of the. manifest error of its ruling on a foreign law, without proof of what that law was.
2. Because the court below erred in refusing to entertain the motion or hear evidence to show its ruling to have been erroneous in view of the actual foreign law governing the point at issue. ■
Powers & Maxan, for defendant in error,
filed an elaborate brief upon the laws of Mexico on the subject in litigation, and insisted that she is not subject to be sued in the courts of this State; that she being a non-resident, no jurisdiction attaches against her until it be shown that she has property within this State, and that the same be actually seized; that the actual seizure of her property in the absence of her person is the only means by which jurisdiction against her can attach ; that it is not sufficient, as held by the District Court, for the plaintiff simply to allege in his petition the presence in this State of property of the defendant; that if this were the case, jurisdiction could be invoked of any and all persons, wherever resident, throughout the world. (See Ward v. Lathrop, 4 Texas, 180; Campbell v. Wilson, 6 Texas, 379; Tulane v. McKee, 10 Texas, 335; Haggerty v. Ward, 25 Texas, 144.)
But the question seems to have been definitely settled in the case of Stoddart et al. v. McMahan, 35 Texas, 267. In that case the court says: “It is by the levy and return of the sheriff that the jurisdiction of the court attaches; and therefore if he should fail to attach the property of the defendant, or fail to make a return specifically that he had attached the property of defendant, his acts would fail to give the court jurisdiction, and no presumption could be brought to bear to cure this defect, or validate any action of the court by virtue of the levy. (Clay v. Nelson, 5 Randolph’s R., 596; Irons v. Allen, Hardin’s Ky. R., 44; Anderson v. Scott, 2 Mo., 15; Bradford v. Gillespie, 8 Dana’s Ky. R., 69.) In the case of Tiffany v. Glover the court say, ‘ It is only by the return that the court is advised of the levy; especial judgment and execution can only be awarded upon sufficient levy, and this must be ascertained by the officer’s return.’ The doctrine as announced in that case is believed to be the law when applied to attachments issued for the purpose of giving the court juirsdiction,” etc. (Stoddart v. McMahan, 35 Texas, 267.)
The defendant therefore submits that as the return of the sheriff in this case shows that no property was found, no jurisdiction obtained as against her, and her plea to the jurisdiction should have been sustained.
The- defendant submits that the plea to the jurisdiction, though sworn to, may nevertheless stand as an exception in this respect, the record on its face disclosing a total want of jurisdiction. (Higgins v. Frederick, 32 Texas, 282; Shropshire v. Dunson, 32 Texas, 467; Salinas v. Wright, 11 Texas, 572; Waller v. Huff, 9 Texas, 530.)

Opinion:
Walker, J.
This action is founded on a draft for $5016.95, drawn at Soto de la Marina, in Tamaulipas, Mexico, in favor of Ysmael Rodriguez, on Don Diego de la Lastra, of Tampico. The original petition was excepted to for want of protest and proper execution on stamped paper, under the laws of Mexico.
The court erred in sustaining the exception without proof of the Mexican law. The laws of foreign States must be proved.
In an amended petition the plaintiff denied the right of the defendant to notice and protest, upon the ground that she had no funds in the hands of the drawee to meet the draft, and that she was not a creditor of the drawee, and the laws of Mexico are again appealed to as authority dispensing with notice and protest in like cases. And here is another logical contest in the pleadings over the laws of Mexico; for the defendant excepted to the amended petition on the ground that the laws of that country make notice and protest an indispensable prerequisite to fix the liability of drawers and endorsers.
The plaintiff, in the amended petition, undertakes to excuse the want of proper stamped paper in the execution of the bill, on the ground that the article could not be had in the market at the time the bill was drawn, and that by subsequently affixing the necessary stamped paper to the bill it was made good. This was excepted to as not being in accordance with the law of Mexico. This exception was sustained by the court, and j udgment respondeat ouster, to which the plaintiff excepted.
At a subsequent term of the court, the plaintiff moved the court to set aside its rulings on the defendant's exceptions to the original and amended petitions. The court overruled the motion, and the plaintiff excepted. The motion was properly overruled, coming as it did too late at the subsequent term of the court. (See Rogers v. Watrous, 8 Texas, 65.)
The rights of the plaintiff, as well as those of the defendant, can still be considered by the courts. This bill being drawn in a foreign country, and to be paid there, must.be governed by the lex loci contractus; and when we have proof of the Mexican law, we may then, so far as applicable, administer those laws under the lex fori. If we knew what were the ordinances of Bilbao, and what was the code of Commerco, and had somebody to swear to them, we could then probably determine with readiness whether the drawer of this bill was liable or not. Like information would enable us to pass upon the question of essentiality in executing a bill on unstamped paper; but it may be borne in mind, that the courts of this country, following, perhaps, the example of the English courts, do not attempt tq enforce the revenue laws of other countries. (1 Johnson R., 96; Holman v. Johnson, Cowp., 343.) This case was dismissed in the District Court on the pleadings. The rulings proceed upon the ground that the instrument sued on was not executed on stamped paper, as required by the law of Mexico; and, secondly, that the plaintiff did not set out the protest of the bill. This judgment appears to have been without proof of the Mexican law, and was erroneous. (1 Greenleaf, Secs. 486-488; Bryant v. Kelton, 1 Texas, 434; Crosby v. Huston, 1 Texas, 203.) It is claimed, that by the laws of Mexico the drawer having no funds in the hands of the drawee to meet the draft, notice and protest is dispensed with. This is certainly a well settled rule of law, and it is claimed to apply to this case. We think the judgment of the District Court should be reversed, however, because of its ruling upon the law of a foreign State without proof of the law, and because of the refusal to hear evidence of the law. The counsel for defendant very ably discuss the laws of Mexico; but unless those laws were proven the courts of this country may not know what they are. They are not here published by authority. We must not be understood as deciding that the rulings of the District Court are absolutely erroneous as to what may be the law of Mexico, but that it was error to decide upon those laws without their being proved. The question of jurisdiction in this case may be regarded as settled by our opinion in No. 570. The garnishee, San Roman, was liable to Madame Serna in the amount of the Scanlan draft; and he being a citizen of Texas gave the court jurisdiction.
The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion rendered September 15, 1873.
Hancock, West & North filed a motion for defendants in error for rehearing, which was granted.