Hurd v. Inglehart

FLY, J. This is a suit on a promissory note for $5,885.29, executed by appellant to appellee, payable in Kansas City, Mo., which upon a trial resulted in a judgment for ap-pellee for the amount claimed by him. [1] Appellant resided at the time the suit was instituted and tried in Matagorda coun *120 ty, Tex., but amici curiae attacked tbe jurisdiction of tbe court on tbe ground that tbe note sued upon was payable in Kansas Oity, Mo. Tbe exceptions to tbe action on that ground were overruled. No authority is cited sustaining appellant’s position, and clearly under our statute tbe district court of Matagorda county bad jurisdiction of the matter in controversy and tbe person of appellant. Appellee could have sued on bis claim in Kansas City, but be undoubtedly bad the right to sue in tbe county of tbe residence of appellant. Tbe suit in that county secured to appellant all tbe rights and privileges of being sued at home, which are usually prized by defendants, and which are jealously guarded by tbe laws of Texas. [2] Tbe exceptions seem to have been presented to tbe court through attorneys describing themselves as amici curice, a position they were allowed to assume only through the grace and leniency of tbe court, and the court might have declined to entertain any exceptions filed by them. State v. Jefferson Iron Co., 60 Tex. 312; Jones v. Jefferson, 66 Tex. 576, 1 S. W. 903. [3] However, they were beard, but tbe exceptions voluntarily filed by them cannot be treated as exceptions 'filed by appellant, and, unless it is a jurisdictional matter, it can’not be considered. Andrews v. Beck, 23 Tex. 455; Moseby v. Burrow, 52 Tex. 396. We know of no law or decision which tends to support tbe contention that where a contract, evidenced by a promissory note, is to be performed in a certain place, even though in another state, that tbe maker thereof cannot be sued in tbe county of bis residence. Tbe judgment is affirmed.