Barrett v. Wentz

Court of Appeals of Texas

Barrett v. Wentz

138 S.W. 428, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 849

DecidedMay 6, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 138 S.W. 428 (Barrett v. Wentz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barrett v. Wentz, 138 S.W. 428, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 849 (Tex. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

SPEER, J.

D. E. Wentz, as plaintiff, sued C. H. Barrett to recover tbe value of one sow and six sboats, as for a conversion, of tbe alleged value of $140. He sought, also, to recover, in addition to tbe above, tbe sum of $25, tbe alleged value of a litter of pigs, tbe increase of said sow after tbe conversion, and also tbe sum of $235 exemplary damages. Tbe defendant interposed special exceptions covering tbe last two items, wbicb were sustained by tbe court. Tbe defendant neither amended, nor asked leave to amend, bis petition.- Tbe cause proceeded to trial, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for tbe plaintiff for $43.86, and the defendant has appealed.

Upon sustaining appellant’s special exceptions, tbe court should have dismissed ap-pellee’s cause of action, since by this ruling tbe amount in controversy was reduced to tbe sum of $140, an amount not within tbe jurisdiction of the county court. Such has been tbe uniform bolding, so far as we are advised, since Haddock v. Taylor, 74 Tex. 216, 11 S. W. 1093.

Tbe judgment of tbe county court is therefore reversed, and judgment here entered dismissing appellee’s cause of action, for want of jurisdiction in the county court.

Reversed and dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SPEER, J.

D. E. Wentz, as plaintiff, sued C. H. Barrett to recover tbe value of one sow and six sboats, as for a conversion, of tbe alleged value of $140. He sought, also, to recover, in addition to tbe above, tbe sum of $25, tbe alleged value of a litter of pigs, tbe increase of said sow after tbe conversion, and also tbe sum of $235 exemplary damages. Tbe defendant interposed special exceptions covering tbe last two items, wbicb were sustained by tbe court. Tbe defendant neither amended, nor asked leave to amend, bis petition.- Tbe cause proceeded to trial, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for tbe plaintiff for $43.86, and the defendant has appealed.

Upon sustaining appellant’s special exceptions, tbe court should have dismissed ap-pellee’s cause of action, since by this ruling tbe amount in controversy was reduced to tbe sum of $140, an amount not within tbe jurisdiction of the county court. Such has been tbe uniform bolding, so far as we are advised, since Haddock v. Taylor, 74 Tex. 216, 11 S. W. 1093.

Tbe judgment of tbe county court is therefore reversed, and judgment here entered dismissing appellee’s cause of action, for want of jurisdiction in the county court.

Reversed and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.W. 428, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-wentz-texapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack