*1 CO. TEXAS SUPPLY v. CLARKE (220 S.W.) already can- the benefit partner, hp may bring stated, contention himself and an undisclosed of cogent reason a breach for tbe for suit not be sustained supports and thereof in the verdict his own name. & Cleveland Cam- the evidence Heidenheimer, eron v. judgment rendered. 30, and that on cross-examination authorities there cited. While it Jlaving testify he wanted to that had reached the conclusion no did hay good by as versible error have leased was committed the court he could he thinks trying of this as that rendered from other there land per ton, aas is affirmed. 25 cents at about whole shows intend nor he did land he could have leased did he quantity quality equal to that leased appellant, that he did for the reason from testify TEXAS CO. v. SUPPLY CLARKE. leased land had fenced that he 1089.) grass and weeds cut had fall and had therefrom of Texas. Paso. El hay by by double, increased, the value 18, 1920. March Motion On for Rehear- April 8, ing, for the thereon Edgar reference testified with Childs @=>80 'Telegram Sales held not to state land as follows: leased and it “I on it in there A cast condition; grass good fact, best lots,” car an offer to of an anywhere April. country in the whole had seen —-the free sell on an and not part I con- March or first of latter pay purchase price seventy-five acre sider that one hundred manche. especially good hay tract was land. That tract there, perform county <§==>7 prairie Venue wasn’t 2. around —Promise under fence. under than residence must fence. any “Q. Well, difference with that make does promise An articles promis- for quite sir; Yes, hay A. -to the it? purchased in a other than the lot. residence, or’s in order to fix the venue they Well, “Q. difference? What plainly such get off, the start.” it does not eat it provide county, for Sayles’ under Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Beaty testified: H.W. 1914, art. 1830. hay Or- in the Eureka land “That tract Venue <S=»3—Statute reason was better tract chards fenced; applicable there was stock the difference was Sayles’ Vernon’s grass keep outside eat off. in there grass 2308, relating venue hardly, anything wasn’t worth justices peace, suits courts the outside wasn’t even cut next to it cause be: not to courts. cut; anything there to there wasn’t up cattle eat —stock.” testified: John Schulze Acceptance Venue held within of offer keep to it benefit fence was “The suit. of the land around The rest of it. stock off certain Where C. offered range practically that wasn’t free there was —all iron for sale and defendant cultivation, out in little and then some under another wired: hay places farms off that had cut different car lots. machine cast is, places; that, little ten-acre the like of acceptance” ment. Wire was answered —which piece.” out plaintiff, “Wire cast,” of the final offer was Crepon, O. C. reference to the leased county, and “cause of action or C. land, testified: thereof” in C. an put up court of such action “Mr. Schulze there. fence You price, fencing improved for under bet possibilities used to that tract 1830, exception raising hay, No. 24. because the cattle there, get had not there been County Court; any fence it be like would this floor—like the < McMillan, prairie J.H. rest of them. Most of the around produced there was unfenced. That land about the Texas hay a ton of to the acre in 1918.” Judgment plaintiff, Supply Company. appeals. Affirmed. [3] The contention that could Crawford, no event Pye, recover more than one-half of M. B. E. and A. Smith & damages Huffman, appellant. sustained is overruled. It all of party ap- well Nabors, settled that where one makes Goodson & name, though in his pellee. contract own it be for (tfc^For cases Indexes see same *2 (Tex. 220 REPORTER SOUTHWESTERN

574 .question means iron Machine cast. Texas —and that this cause sition, And ue was iron, ise in such cases is that “the court are of the struction words, G. S. you. cast car lots. Texas shall be sued out of the reads: cause lant in to sell the iron free to we are not in the market at furnish us with and does cle “H/W. bewill Comanche, Texas. Comanche, within one of the county O. pany, said ing reply troduced, this action of the court domiciled in Tex., the car number one cast wire offer fob Comanche. alleging maintained “No “Comanche, “Mr. G. The test as to HARPER, The defendant fileS'its [1, 2] price S. domicile, “Tours following at agreed but Clarke, county. are,We Clarke, against and asserted person perform [pay] urging .that that it is an properly court of Comanche Appellant’s corporation, for that is raised here. the contract to the and Texas. Will wire scrap iron, except Clarke, 1234 P. M.” to make who J.C. Tex., Dec. 1918.- G. S. Texas, 11:23 A. M. Dec. Tex., use letter and contends: it “Texas Co., relate the Beaumont, Comanche f. from and we will then appealed, laid opinion plea. price is an inhabitant ’as whether the suit could o. b. words exceptions Dee. 1918. G. S. court relies Tex. A This suit was filed proposition advise where the material its supporting the to or Supply Company, “December payment county in we-wish to state The evidence was Comanche”; Comanche telegrams. action does not come that the as error. First, $430. overruled the upon and has Jefferson plea By.” make county, filed controvert- majority therein named. to be sued Texas. Have sages that the ven- paid is that arti which he of the offer ferson governs; of this state proper Comanche” 4th, other than lies within Monday on Comanche, county cases” Comanche for mixed was privilege, 236; The rule No Tex., assigned 7,1918. county, Clarke, propo- means prom- in the the Com- plea, iron con- that has the the can hy in ties made the it court is directed to enter the ruling transmit the same made in either appellant agreed court agreement and its reason for it cannot be the latter because, there is This and if it can be said that the contract was commenced in any private corporation this cause telephone, etc.; in said county, agreed tween the rect for it received consummated. The fact to load the bring etc., and in that itt v. ease within Co difference venue in such and “the v. Statutes, the Accordingly Appellee offered to sell from Comanche Next The case of Planters’ Oil Co. v. Whitesboro follows that the Heitmann, prepare action” venue therein using promisor’s residence, plainly provides of the instant there and there loaded for court of the tton Oil chapter Harris Next papers Stat., the case Berry, therefore was in is reversed county, court of breach appellee said county. nothing county. Broadly speaking, or a county. the names tenth parties, in Comanche it was comprehends maintaining argues, appellee urges .which iron case v. to the quoted; so, quoting therefrom, county, said 86 S. W. that similar to this transdrj.pt any county in this county, Moller, Comanche in the evidence says the as to the Co., exception the the other. that the together price made county Cohen trial and set the thereof, the provides, perform any part Comanche the that the facts article contract was made 24No. it is 207 S. W. performance by county contract was entered 1187; court erred in over- and the sense that in property purchased judgment changing v. in we hold: county; that the offer was of the in which privilege. court of Jeffersoh by telegraph Jefferson contract arose in * » * parties, Jefferson more arose, Munsen, said order to therein named. aside, that case; As held of article “Suits agreement Russell of the trial appellee the offer and furnishes court clerk county, in peace,” 961; nearly to suits is directed cause agreement show that Rev. completed the shipment, the * writing,” counties, counties, the may be county; county, in Co- fix “cause above, * * in its Burk cause & Co. facts Civil mes par- only Tex. one, Jef- cor- the the be- in ” was proposition we iron, furnish Comanche to Texas mont, Tex.; fore was in No. fer to our was not fused, will you. not fered to first contract was made in Comanche stead of that made in the “H/W statement of facts reveal the “Mr. It will be prices are “Xours attention to the fact that written in Jefferson time We purchase at east; not in the us accepted by appellant, buy can use' are, or offer scrap iron, we and that noted that onr Beaumont; made there. a different kind from and we thereupon motion market appellee Comanche; Texas was made advise where the county. The Supply theory wish Appellee Dec. Company, original opinion rehearing this first by appellee therefore, appellant of.iron, viz. to state that but was Company.” county, and’ 4th, 1918. then if opinion; record BETTS BETTS material this of- Texas Beau- mixed offer calls (220 of- !.W.) herein, Company, Incorporated.” received cast car lots. Wire Comanche offer made in that follows: ing Company R. pleaded the facts Waste 515. or Tex.,” and this “I was in Under these Por See S., price, ‘Eighteen fifty jurisdiction. refers within True, appellee, quoted which granted, these Mills v. county, Tex., cars n dated thereof arose county, Tex., to subdivision 10 *3 telegram relates reasons December and cause affirmed. 'shipment Early-Poster Co., was undisputed “that when from the Texas acceptance.’ sufficient No. justice courts, 9, 1918, the cause of action the defendant to tne Texas motion Comanche machine 24, his I loaded the iron and was opinion. Tex., controverting which for rehear- I was in p. 5), Dallas but he Supply quoted 2308, is a following telegram The was introduced reply quoted letter which above, furnishing BETTS v. BETTS et al. requested ‘information quot- buy letter offer of Texas. Texarkana. (S. 1), ed P. to wit: 18, 1920.) “Comanche, Texas, 11:23 M. Dec. Frauds, <@=550(2) Supply Co., statute lease for Have —Parol » term of lessor’s life valid. held number one cast offer Comanche. G. wire fob P. Clarke 1234 M.” Parol lease the term of lessor’s life (Vernon’s under statute of void frauds following telegram introduced, Sayles’ The 3965), provid- reply ing telegram longer from for a term is in that lease than 'for one which year ing terms void; unless in (S. such statute‘be- quoted 1), lee to last above E. applicable only to leases which .to wit: performed year. cannot Dee. Texas. S.' 1918. G. Frauds, <@=50(2) statute Parol lease Clarke, Comanche, day Texas. Will wire Mon- may which be for a term less than one on machine cast. Texas year upon happening contingency not void. may longer introduced, the lease for a following telegram oy When according year, shorter term than one er a to wheth- buy quota- the offer which contains contingency happens which is to end it preceding tel- mentioned each tion egrams year not, within the not within statute 1), wit: P. letter (Vernon’s Sayles’ of art. frauds Texas, requiring 3965), longer Dec. S.G. lease for a term Texas. than one to be lots. machine cast car manche ment. Wire acceptance. Court, County; District Cass O’Neal, H. P. fol- evidence Then was introduced V. Betts W. H. Mrs. S. lowing telegram, was the nonsuit, Judgment of others. Betts and the offer contained plaintiff appeals. 1), (S. P. wit: to. controversy 200 acres Dec “Comanche Texas 10 20 AM 10 1918. community longed estate between Supply Co., Beaumont, Texas. Wirfe prior wife, first who died G. Betts car cast. leaving intestate, seems, Í899, children 11 AM.” <®=jFor and Indexes otlier eases see same