173 S.W. 538 | Tex. App. | 1915
On December 2, 1914, the appellee, C. C. Crump, filed a petition asking for a writ of injunction restraining the appellant, M. C. Wade, from prosecuting a suit against the appellee in the circuit court of Miller county, Ark. The petition alleges, in substance, that both the appellee and the appellant reside in Bowie county, Tex., are citizens of the state of Texas, and have been such for many years; that some time during the year 1914 the appellant, Wade, instituted a suit against the appellee in the circuit court of Miller county, Ark., in which he seeks to recover the sum of $600 claimed as commissions for a land sale; that the appellee does not own any property in Miller county, Ark., which might be subjected to the payment of a judgment. It is further alleged that the suit referred to was instituted for the purpose of harassing and annoying the appellee; that if its prosecution is permitted the appellee will be compelled to employ attorneys to defend the suit, at a cost to him of about the sum of $600. He also alleges that under the laws of the state of Texas he is entitled to be sued in Bowie county, the county of his residence. The petition concludes with a prayer for a writ of injunction restraining the appellant from further prosecuting the suit in Miller county, Ark. Upon presentation of the petition, the court entered an order directing the writ to issue upon the plaintiff's executing a bond in the sum of $250 conditioned as required by law. The bond was subsequently executed and the writ issued. This appeal is from that order.
The only question presented is: Do the facts alleged in the petition state grounds for granting this writ? It has been held in this state that, if the averments of the petition for an injunction are of such a character as to make it the duty of the court to restrain or enjoin the party from instituting or conducting like proceedings in a court of this state, it would be a proper case for restraining him by a similar process from prosecuting such a suit in the courts of another state. Moton v. Hull,
The mere fact that the appellee will be deprived of the right to be sued in the county of his residence furnishes no ground for interfering by injunction with the jurisdiction of another court. While it is true this is a valuable right, it is only a personal privilege which may be waived. Ward v. Odem,
As said in Carson v. Dunham,
"The general rule is that, where a case may be brought in either of two tribunals, that court which obtains jurisdiction of the case retains it; and this extends upon principles of comity to cases of conflicting suits brought in the courts of sister states. This court, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, will not restrain the prosecution of such a suit unless a clear equity is made out, requiring the interposition of the court to prevent a manifest wrong and injustice, or a clear waiver of our laws which should govern the rights of the parties."
If full and complete justice may be done as between the citizens of the same state in a suit in the courts of a sister state, a court of this state will not Interfere to prevent the foreign suit unless there is oppression or fraud. And the fact that the defendant who is sued in the courts of a sister state prefers to have the matter determined by the courts of his domicile is no ground for an injunction against the plaintiff, if the courts have concurrent jurisdiction. Wyeth Hardware Co. v. Lang,
The judgment of the district court will therefore be reversed, and the order granting the temporary writ vacated, and all costs of this court adjudged against the appellee.
