Citations
- 38 S.W.2d 604
Full opinion text
GRAVES, J.
With only immaterial interlineations as to form, this eoncededly correct statement is taken from appellants’ brief:
“This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Jackson County overruling the pleas of privilege of appellants herein, T. B. Sullivan and S. B. Davis, individually and as co-partners, trading under the name of Sullivan & Davis, and the Employers Casualty Company.
“Suit was filed in the District Court of Jackson County by plaintiffs, A. E. Westhoff and H. F. Stierling, residents of Jackson County, against T. B. Sullivan and S. B. Davis, residents of Williamson County, and the Employers’ Casualty Company, a corporation, with its legal domicile in Dallas County, on the basis of claims as alleged by plaintiffs’ petition against the defendants, growing out of a debt for goods, wares, and merchandise, supplied by plaintiffs to the defendants, Sullivan and Davis, on a public job, to-wit: the construction of a bridge across the Lavaca River in Jackson County, on Highway No. 12, the job being let by the State Highway Department, and being known as Job No. 121-B, Federal Aid Project 543-F. A series of release-bonds were executed by Sullivan and Davis in accordance with the provision of Article 5472-B, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the defendant, the Employers’ Casualty Company, became surety on the series of release-bonds. The moneys impounded in the hands of the State Highway Department were released upon the filing of the release-bonds mentioned, and plaintiffs are now suing upon these release-bonds, as provided by the statute mentioned. Plaintiffs are suing in the alternative upon the general contractor’s bond of the defendants, Sullivan and Davis, with the defendant, the Employers’ Casualty Company, as surety, alleging that ¡their debt is a proper charge against that bond.
“Messrs. T. N., Fred, and Harry Mauritz, and the Sheffield Steel Corporation, intervened in the suit filed by plaintiffs herein', setting up similar claims in varying amounts against the .defendants, Sullivan and Davis, with the defendant, the Employers’ Casualty Company, as surety.
“Pleas of privilege in statutory form were timely filed by each of the defendants, and the same were controverted by the plaintiffs and the intervenors, Messrs. Mauritz.
“Upon a hearing of the pleas of privilege and the controverting affidavits thereto, they all were overruled, to which action of the trial court appellants excepted, gave notice of appeal to this court, and perfected their appeal by the filing of their cost bond.
“Upon the trial of the venue hearing, no facts were adduced relative to venue in Jackson County, though it was shown that certain goods, wares, and merchandise were supplied to Sullivan and Davis for the public job in Jackson County for which Sullivan & Davis were the general contractors, and that release-bonds were put up by such defendants with their co-defen