London Assurance Corp. v. T. H. Lee & Co.
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Mitchell. Tried below before the Hon. T. B. Wheeler. In this suit, defendants in error sought to recover upon a policy of insurance, and on February 11, 1884, filed their origin? 1 petition.
Read the full summary
Error from Mitchell. Tried below before the Hon. T. B. Wheeler. In this suit, defendants in error sought to recover upon a policy of insurance, and on February 11, 1884, filed their origin? 1 petition. On March 20, 1884, plaintiff in error answered by filing a motion to quash notice, a general demurrer and general denial in the following language: “Fow comes the London Assurance Corporation, and the defendant in the above entitled and numbered cause, by its attorneys, and in the event of an adverse ruling upon its motion to quash the notice requiring defendant to answer, and in that event…
1Opinion of the Court
Willie, Chief Justice.
The defendant below being a non-resident, a notice of this suit was served upon its secretary in Few York, as prescribed in R. S., arts. 1230-1234. The defendant filed a motion to quash the service but made no objection to the jurisdiction of the court as thus attempted to be acquired. At the same time the de*248fendant filed a general demurrer and general denial. These latter pleadings were to be considered only in the event that the motion to quash the service was overruled. The court sustained the motion and quashed the service, and the cause was continued to the next…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Pierson v. BurneyTexas Supreme Court · 1855
- McKellar v. LamkinTexas Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by16 opinions
- Spivey v. Saner-Ragley Lumber Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1926
- Sutherland v. KirklandCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911
- Paggi v. Rose Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Wood v. LoveCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
- Allright, Inc. v. RoperCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1972
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.