Freeman v. Kuechler

Citations

• 45 Tex. 592

Syllabus

<p>1. Freeman brought suit against the Commissioner of the General Land Office in Travis county, where that office is located, and also against B and C as co-defendants, alleging that B and C were guilty of a fraud in Travis county, in filing certain field-notes in the land office of a survey of land in Navarro county which was claimed by Freeman under a different location, and he prayed that his location be declared valid, and that the commissioner be directed by mandamus to patent the same; that the field-notes and survey of B and C be annulled, and the Commissioner of the General Land Office be enjoined from issuing a patent thereon. On appeal from a judgment of the District Court, sustaining a demurrer to the petition: Held, 1. Where the principal cause of action is a fraudulent act, suit may be brought in the county where the act was committed. 2. Where the main object of a suit is to set aside a fraudulent transaction, it may be brought in the county where the fraud was committed. 3. The alleged fraud in filing the field-notes in the General Land Office in Travis county and there applying for a patent would not give jurisdiction to the District Court of Travis county under the sixth exception to the rule, which entitles a defendant to be sued in the county where he has his domicile. (Paschal’s Dig., art. 1423.) The acts alleged do not constitute such a fraud as was contemplated by the statute. The main fraud, if any existed, was in the location or entry by B and C in another count).</p> <p>2. Distinguished from Evans v. Mills, 16 Tex., 196-199, and Finch v. Edmonson, 9 Tex., 504.</p> <p>3. Approved. — Commissioner of Land Office v. Smith, 5 Tex., 485; Henderson v. Kissam, 8 Tex., 55; Pool v. Pickett, 8 Tex., 123.</p>