Under that which was held in
Fidelity & Deposit Ins. Co. v. Gainesville Iron Works,
The appellant contends that the Gainesville Iron Works case is distinguishable because in that case the court was dealing with surety bonds and the venue of that type action is governed by statute. We do not agree with this contention. The rationale of that case was not solely confined to the statute therein involved but was based on broad considerations of public policy against limiting venue by contract.
Judgment affirmed.
