546 S.W.2d 84. In so holding, the court relied on Laukhuf v. Associates Discount Corp., 443 S.W.2d 725 (Tex.Civ.App.1969, no writ); Carter v. Texas State Bank of Jacksonville, 189 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Civ.App.1945, no writ); and Cullum v. Commercial Credit Co., 134 S.W.2d 822 (Tex.Civ.App.1939, no writ). Those cases reason that because an absolute and unconditional guaranty of a note binds the guarantor upon all the terms of the note, the guaranty contract includes the venue provisions of the note for subdivision 5 purposes.
Where plaintiff, if he recovers, will be entitled to a joint judgment against one or more defendants and suit is maintainable where brought as to one of the defendants under a subdivision of the general venue statute, the other defendant is a necessary party within the meaning of Subdivision 29a allowing suit to be maintained in such county against any and all necessary parties thereto. Orange Associates, Inc. v. Albright, 548 S.W.2d 806, 808 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1977, writ dism'd); Van Huss v. Buchanan, 508 S.W.2d 412, 417 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1974, writ dism'd); Ladner v. Reliance Corporation, supra; Carter v. Texas State Bank of Jacksonville, 189 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1945, n. w. h.). Appellants contend that appellee failed to establish its own residence as it is required to do under Subdivision 3 of the Venue Statute.
We take note of two of such cases. In Carter v. Texas State Bank of Jacksonville, 189 S.W.2d 782 (Tex . Civ.App.-Texarkan 1945, no writ), the defendant agreed to guarantee 'the indebtedness of A. F. Barnhill and G. T. Murphy which at this time is approximately $3,500.00.' The guarantee applied to 'additional amounts' not to exceed $5,000.
"* * * The note became due and payable at Amarillo in Potter County and we think the conclusion is inescapable that appellants are, by the law and also by the specific terms of the contract itself, bound by the venue provision of the note in the same manner as they are bound by its other provisions." The Cullum case reaffirmed the holdings in the earlier cases of Looney v. Le Geirse Co., 2 Willson Civ.Cast.Ct.App., ยง 531, p. 47; McCauley v. Cross, 111 S.W. 790 (Tex.Civ.App., 1908), and Citizens' State Bank of Alice v. Commonwealth Bank Trust Co., 268 S.W. 1008 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio 1925). It was followed in Carter v. Texas State Bank of Jacksonville, 189 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana 1945, n.w.h.); and in Laukhuf v. Associates Discount Corporation, 443 S.W.2d 725 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas 1969, n.w.h.). From the cases above cited, it is noted that our courts, in fact situations substantially similar to that presented by this appeal, have uniformly held that such a contract of guaranty as we have in this case shall be performed in the county or in a definite place therein where the note is expressly made payable.
" (Emphasis supplied.) This case reaffirmed the earlier case of McCauley v. Cross, 111 S.W. 790 (Tex.Civ.App., 1908), and both cases have been reaffirmed in Carter v. Texas State Bank of Jacksonville, 189 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana 1945). See also annotation in 97 A.L.R.2d 979, 980, and cases cited.
ovides that whenever there are two or more defendants in any suit brought in any county where such suit is lawfully maintainable under the provisions of Article 1995 as to any of such defendants, then such suit may be maintained in such county against any and all necessary parties thereto. Since venue as to the defendant The First Trust Company is held to be in Victoria County under Subdivision 23, the other defendants W. T. Mayne and W. R. Mayne are properly held in Victoria County under Subdivision 29a. See: Broderick v. Galt, Tex.Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 268 (no writ); Brown v. Neyland, Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 227 (no writ); Commonwealth Bank & Trust Co. v. Heid Bros., Tex.Com.App., 122 Tex. 56, 52 S.W. 74; Ramey v. Mathis & Pitts, 149 Tex. 214, 230 S.W.2d 211; Amberson v. F. G. Rodgers & Co., Tex.Civ.App., 271 S.W.2d 846 (writ dis.); Carter v. Texas State Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 189 S.W.2d 782 (no writ). Subdivision 10, Article 1995, R.C.S. provides that suit for recovey of personal property may be brought in any county where the property may be. It is undisputed that defendants sold the property of Claircrest Corporation and that some of the property is still in existence in Victoria County.