Citations
- 73 Tex. 103
Full opinion text
Henry, Associate Justice.—
Appellee instituted this suit to recover of appellant a moneyed judgment exceeding two thousand dollars exclusive of interest.
Plaintiff’s original petition was filed on the 29th of June, 1887. Defendant was served with citation on the 2nd day of July, 1887. The term of the court to which the citation was returnable began September 6, 1887.
Plaintiff’s original petition alleged that he was a resident of Colorado County, Texas, and that the defendant was a private corporation chartered by virtue of the laws of the State of Kentucky.
On September 6, 1887, the defendant filed its petition for the removal of the cause to the United States Circuit Court, and at the same time filed its bond, properly conditioned, and with two sureties, which was approved by the clerk of the court. The petition for removal states that at the time it was filed and at the time the suit was begun the plaintiff was a citizen and resident of the State of Texas; that the defendant was a citizen and resident of the State of Kentucky; and that the matters in dispute exceeded exclusive of interest and costs the sum of two thousand dollars. Afterward, on the 19th day of September, 1887, plaintiff filed an amended original petition, in which he states “that he is unable to state where said defendant corporation was chartered,” and -does not state where defendant resides, but charges that it is a railway •corporation, and as such owns and operates lines of railway in the State •of Texas; that it has an office in the State of Texas as required by law, •and a local agent, naming him, in Colorado County.
Plaintiff filed objections to the removal of the cause upon the following grounds:
1. Because before the beginning of this term of the court the attorneys for both parties had agreed that the cause should stand continued at the approaching term, which agreement was consent on defendant’s part to the jurisdiction of the State court.
2. Because plaintiff by alleging in his amended petition his want of knowledge of the place of incorporation of the defendant had abandoned his allegation that it was in the State of Kentucky.
3. Because under his allegations that the defendant owned and oper•ated lines of railroad in Texas, had an office in the State of Texas, and a local agent in Colorado County, the District Court had jurisdiction to determine the case.
4. Because under the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas the defendant being a railway corporation extending into and through ■the State of Texas, is required to keep an office in the State, at which it is required to keep its books, and its directors are required to meet annually in said State.
.5. Because the petition for removal was not sworn to. ’
'On the 30th of September, 1887, the District Court entered in its minutes an order overruling the defendant’s petition to remove and retaining jurisdiction of the cause.
At the next term of the District Court the cause was tried and a final judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff, to reverse which this appeal is -prosecuted.
Appellant assigns that “the court below erred in its judgment of 30th