Court Opinion

ID: 9828555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:29:17.896999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:50.363540
License: Public Domain

On Motion of Appellant for a Rehearing.
Appellant insists the conclusion reached here that it appeared the suit was maintainable against him in Dallas county by force of exception 9 to the provision in article 1995, R. S. 1925, referred to in the opinion affirming the judgment, was unwarranted, -because without the support of allegations in appel-lee’s controverting affidavit showing him to have been guilty of conversion of the stock in that county. The allegations which we thought, and still think, authorized the admission of evidence on which that conclusion was based, were as follows: “That the defendant John Henry Kirby * * * acting in pursuance of an unlawful agreement theretofore made between himself, said John Henry Kirby, and the said defendants S. W. Sibley and O. S. Carlton, unlawfully converted all of said corporate stock to his, the said John *765Henry Kirby’s own personal use and benefit * ⅜ ⅜ xhis is a suit for conversion of the stock sued on, and for damages thereto, brought in the district'court of Dallas County, Texas, where the wrongs complained of in plaintiff’s petition (made a part of the controverting affidavit) and the torts therein alleged as committed by the defendants, and the trespass complained of, were committed in Dallas County, Texas.”
The motion is overruled.