Subscribers to Fidelity Lloyds of America v. Lyday
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the CourtLevy, J.
(after stating the facts as above). Error is predicated upon the overruling of appellant’s plea to have the issues made and arising under the traversed answer tried in the court in the county of the residence of the garnishee, as provided by article 4096, Revised Statutes 1925. The garnishee, whose answer was controverted, resided, as admittedly shown, in Houston, Tex., and not in Dallas, Tex., where the main suit was tried. In such facts it would seem that the Dallas court had no jurisdiction to proceed to try the issues made and arising under the traversed answer. Illimitable jurisdiction…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Oilmen's Reciprocal Assn. v. FranklinTexas Supreme Court · 1926
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. HaleTexas Supreme Court · 1918
- American Surety Co. v. BernsteinTexas Supreme Court · 1907
- Reed v. First State Bank of PurdonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
- Smith Brothers v. Wallis, Landes Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1898
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Pinkston v. Victoria Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1948
- Clay Bldg. Material Co. v. First Nat. Bank of MidlandCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1941
- Goodson v. CarrCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1968
- Gottesman v. ToubinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1959
- First National Bank In Dallas v. Steves Sash & Door Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1971