Dist.] 1997, no writ); Linton v. Airbus Industrie, 934 S.W.2d 754, 757 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, w , 457 S.W.2d 649, 651-52 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1970, writ ref’d n.r.e.), cited with approval in U-Anchor Adver., 553 S.W.2d at 764 (noting that jurisdiction existed over an Arizona wholesaler, even though the parties' contract was solicited in Arizona by the Texas manufacturer, because payments were to be made in Texas, the Arizona wholesaler placed several orders with the Texas manufacturer, the goods were delivered F.O.B. Houston, and some orders were to he delivered directly to Texas retailers, indicating the Arizona wholesaler's expectation of profits from Texas); and J.D. Fields & Co. v. W.H. Streit, Inc., 21 S.W.3d 599, 604-05 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). However, the fact that a state’s law governs
holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident guarantor of debt to texas creditor based only on sending a guaranty agreement to texas and discussing the general pattern of texas cases holding likewise holding that jurisdiction existed over two georgia residents who leased a machine from a texas resident because they 1 solicited and negotiated the lease agreement by two telephone calls to texas 2 sent correspondence and payments by mail to texas 3 paid for the transfer of the machine from texas and 4 caused their insurance agent to contact the texas resident in texas to arrange coverage for the machine holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident printing customer despite the fact that texas printer solicited the business in alabama and nonresident sent no personnel to texas because nonresident placed additional orders from which it expected to profit sent payments to texas sent and received printing materials to and from texas paid for shipping of printed goods from texas and sent payments to texas the transactions were governed by texas law and substantial part of performance occurred in texas holding sending two employees to work in texas and using an office in texas for limited purposes did not support finding of general jurisdiction