for breach of such contract.’ That is precisely this case, so the local action rule does not apply.” (internal citations omitted). Smith, however, was a venue dispute. 219 S.W.2d at 442-44. The Supreme Court made no reference to the local action rule — generally, a forum doctrine— in deciding that the suit for specific performance on a royalties agreement did not fall within a mandatory venue provision governing certain real-property-related actions. Id. at 444. 8 . The parties have not invoked any other statutory basis for interlocutory appeal. 9 . E.g., Livingston v. Jefferson, 15 Fed.Cas. 660, 664 (C.C.D.Va.1811) (applying local action rale to hold that Virginia court lacked jurisdiction over claim for trespass to land located in Louisiana); Casey, 102 U.S. at 68, 26 L.Ed. 52 (<HOLDING>); Crawford v. Silette, 608 F.3d 275, 277-78
holding that the failure of three defendants to object to venue did not waive a fourth defendants objection and therefore affirming the trial courts decision to transfer venue holding that former federal rule of civil procedure 6a and e applies to federal habeas petitions holding the rule was not applicable in a pretrial venue hearing holding that former federal venue statute applied to transitory actions only and did not displace local action rule holding that the venue provisions of the bankruptcy act were superseded by the local action doctrine