Court Opinion

ID: 9831726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:19:08.31177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:37.368265
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
At a former day of the term the judgment in this case was affirmed, and the appellant has presented a motion for rehearing, which, after mature consideration, we believe should be granted. The suit was brought upon an accepted draft. The defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the County Court of Coke County, in which- the suit was brought, upon the ground that he resided in Coleman County, and was entitled to be sued in that county. The trial court sustained the plea and dismissed the suit, and the plaintiff appealed. The testimony set out in the bill of exception shows the following facts: The draft sued on reads as follows:
“Customer’s First National Bank, Marble Falls, Texas.
Draft Marble Falls, Texas, Nov. 9, 1903.
$400
“Pay to the order of First National Bank, Marble Falls, four hundred and no/100 dollars. Advanced on cattle. ' J. R. Yett.
W. S. Green, Robert Lee, Texas, c/o Bank at Robert Lee.”
The draft was presented to the defendant and his acceptance endorsed thereon in the town of Robert Lee, which is in Coke County. It is provided by article 1194 of the Revised Statutes that when a written contract is to be performed in a particular county, the defendant may be sued in that county, regardless of where he may reside, and it has been frequently held that it is not necessary that the contract shall, in express words, require performance in a particular county. Such performance may be a necessary implication from the context of the instrument. (Seley v. Williams, 50 S. W. Rep., 400; Darrah v. O’Connor, 69 S. W. Rep., 646; Lammers v. Floyd, 33 S. W. Rep., 150; Bell County Brick Co. v. Cox & Co., 8 Texas Ct. Rep., 282.)
In Cox v. National Bank, 100 U. S., 739, a bill of exchange was addressed to Cox & Cowan, New York, N. Y., and they wrote across the face of it, “Accepted, Cox & Cowan,” and it was held that the bill and the acceptance evidenced a contract to pay the money in New York. In that case, as in this, there was nothing on the face of the instrument indicating the place of payment, except the address.
According to these authorities, inasmuch as the draft was addressed to the defendant at Robert Lee, which is a town in Coke County, and was accepted by him in general terms and not by a qualified acceptance, we conclude that it was the intention of the parties in making the contract that the debt should be paid in Coke County.
The motion for rehearing is granted, and the judgment of the court below reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.