J. R. Watkins Co. v. Webb.

HIGGINS, Justice (after stating the case as above).

Appellees assert the contract of Bad-gett and McKenney simply guaranteed Webb would pay at Winona or Dallas. The contract does not have such limited meaning. Under its terms they “promised” pay ment by them at Winona or Dallas. Such is the fair interpretation of the contract. It imposes upon the sureties an obligation performable by them in Dallas at the option of the plaintiff. The optionable nature of the obligation did not render inapplicable the fifth section of the venue statute. As against Badgett and McKenney, the venue was properly…