Armendiaz v. Stillman

Citations

• 54 Tex. 623
• 1881 Tex. LEXIS 72

Syllabus

<p>1. Venue — Construction oe statute — Jurisdiction.—The plaintiff sued for damages caused to his land and the improvements thereon, situate on the south bank of the Rio Grande river in Mexico, by obstructions placed in the bed of said river by defendant, on the Texas side thereof, in the county of Cameron, in which county the defendant resided, and the suit was brought. On the question of jurisdiction, held—</p> <p>1. The technical rules of the common law have no more to do in determining the venue of a cause in Texas, than the rules of the common law governing the form and names of actions.</p> <p>3. if the state failed to give to one of its citizens a remedy against others for such an injury as the one complained of, it would fail to observe the constitutional pledge promising a remedy by due course of law for injury done, in lands, person or reputation, as plainly as if it refused a remedy for an injury inflicted in a foreign jurisdiction to one’s goods or person.</p> <p>3. Article 1198 of the Revised Civil Statutes subjects every citizen to be sued in the county of his domicile, subject to certain exceptions, of which this is not one. That article annuls the technical rule of the common law regarding transitory and local actions.</p> <p>4. The 13th exception to art. 1198 has no application in this case, and the action was maintainable in Cameron county, as the county of defendant’s residence, not only under the general provisions of that article, but under the eighth subdivision of it.</p>