Court Opinion

ID: 9833222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:32:37.521983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:00.678092
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing has been overruled. But upon further consideration we have concluded to rest our decision also upon the proposition that, as the defendant, R. L. Spencer, was, according to *120the averments of the petition, liable to the plaintiff as an obligor on the note sued on, the plaintiff had the right to bring the suit in the county of his residence; and the fact that the plaintiff also sued appellant, who resided in a different county, upon a separate cause of action,' did not deprive the plaintiff of its right under the statute to assert its cause of action against appellant in the same suit, if it was so connected with the subject-matter of the other cause of action as entitled the plaintiff to assert both causes of action in the same suit. We are of the opinion that the case belongs to that class, and therefore the plaintiff had the right to sue in any county where either of the defendants resided. Skipwith v. Hurt, 94 Tex. 322, 60 S. W. 423; Good v. Adrian (Tex. Civ. App.) 233 S. W. 298; Nueces County v. Gussett (Tex. Civ. App.) 213 S. W. 725.
Plaintiff alleged in its petition that the note sued on was secured by pledge of a certain number of bales of cotton, which had been placed in the hands of appellant, and prayed for foreclosure of its lien upon the cotton, if appellant produced it, and, if it failed to produce it, then for a moneyed judgment for its value. Under our liberal system of procedure, and keeping in view the rule that that system does not favor the bringing of a multiplicity of suits, and the fact that it does not seem probable that joining in one suit the two causes of action will result in any unnecessary confusion or delay, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff had the right to assert both causes of action in the same suit.
Motion overruled.