Pool v. Pickett
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Red Elver. This was a suit by Pickett as indorsee of the promissory note of Pool, payable to Rhine Brothers & Co., of New Orleans, or bearer, and indorsed by Rhine Brothers and Co., and also by one Samuel Rhine. The suit was brought jointly against Pool, who resided in Bowie, as maker, and Samuel Rhine, who resided in Red River, as indorser.
Read the full summary
Error from Red Elver. This was a suit by Pickett as indorsee of the promissory note of Pool, payable to Rhine Brothers & Co., of New Orleans, or bearer, and indorsed by Rhine Brothers and Co., and also by one Samuel Rhine. The suit was brought jointly against Pool, who resided in Bowie, as maker, and Samuel Rhine, who resided in Red River, as indorser. The defendant alleged in his answer that Samuel Rhine was one of the firm of Rhine Brothers & Co.; that the indorsement from Rhine Brothers & Co. to Samuel Rhine and from Samuel Rhine to Pickett was merely colorable, and fraudulently contrived…
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Ce. J.
The note in suit was made payable to Rhine Brothers & Co., or bearer, and the defendant, Pool, who was the maker of the note, avers that the use of the name of Wm. L. Pickett as plaintiff and the indorsement on the note arc blit fraudulent contrivances to divest the District Court of the county in which he resides of jurisdiction and confer it upon that of the county in which the indorser, Samuel Rhine, has his residence, and that such arlifice is oppressive, is in violation of the law, aud that the venue is thereby improperly changed.
Tho said defendant also propounded…
2Cited by27 opinions
- Belo Corp. v. Thomas BlantonTexas Supreme Court · 1939
- Burtis v. Butler Bros.Texas Supreme Court · 1950
- Meredith v. McClendonTexas Supreme Court · 1938
- Meredith v. McClendonTexas Supreme Court · 1938
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. WoodTexas Supreme Court · 1947
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.