Court Opinion

ID: 9827429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:32:32.736132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:31.280113
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
 Both the Phinn store and the Central store were owned and operated solely by Scales, under the separate trade-names. The use of distinct trade-names does not affect Scales’ exclusive liability for debts incurred in the operation of both stores. The use of the trade-names is of no significance in testing that liability. The contract under which appellant asserts a right to bring suit in Bex-ar county is the contract of Scales. In that contract he agreed to pay appellant, in Bexar county, not only for the articles therein specifically described, but for “subsequent orders,” as well. But it was a contract to pay for specific fixtures to be installed in the Phinn drug store, owned and operated by Seales. There was no express reference in the contract to any other drug store or other business owned by him, or to current or subsequent purchases of drugs or other goods in the .operation of either the Central store, or other businesses operated by him at Del Rio or elsewhere. Such reference may be inferred only by implication from express language in the contract. Such an implication is not a necessary incident to the language used, but rather puts a strain thereon. The courts will not deduce unnecessary inferences from written contracts in order to bring the citizen under the exceptions to the venue statute, and deprive him of his natural and statutory right to be sued in his own domicile — a valuable right not to be lightly denied him. We say this much more in deference to the abLe and earnest motion for rehearing presented by counsel for appellant.
The motion must be overruled.