Cable Company v. Rogers

99 S.W. 736, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 620, 1907 Tex. App. LEXIS 415
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 6, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 99 S.W. 736 (Cable Company v. Rogers) 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
Cable Company v. Rogers, 99 S.W. 736, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 620, 1907 Tex. App. LEXIS 415 (Tex. Ct. App. 1907).

Opinion

EAHSTBY, Chief Justice.

This suit was brought in the Justice Court by appellant to recover on three promissory notes, each for $35, interest and attorney’s fees, executed by appellee.

Appellee answered stating that said notes were executed in consideration for one piano of the value of $380, on which he had paid $305, in property and money. That the consideration had failed, said piano being not as represented, but totally worthless, and sought the cancellation of said notes and a recovery of the amount paid, less $10 remitted. His prayer was: “Wherefore, premises considered defendant prays that upon final hearing he have judgment against the plaintiff for the sum of one hundred dollars in money and the return of his organ and cow in the condition in which they were received by plaintiff or their value in money, which was $70 for the organ and $35 for the cow and that said three notes herein sued on be cancelled and held for naught, and for all, general, special and equitable relief, etc.”

The effect of appellee’s plea was for a rescission of the contract, which involved the sum of $380. Of this amount he sought affirmative relief for the sum of $370, being the amount of contract less the sum of $10, which he remitted. The relief sought by appellee involved an amount greater than that over which the Justice Court had jurisdiction. It was error for the justice to assume jurisdiction over the amount claimed by appellee, and the County Court should.not have entertained said plea, though not excepted to by appellant. The judgment will be reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Davis v. Jordan
151 S.W.2d 291 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Brook Mays & Co. v. Osborne
70 S.W.2d 755 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Commercial Inv. Trust, Inc. v. Smart
69 S.W.2d 35 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1934)
Commercial Investment Trust, Inc. v. Smart
69 S.W.2d 35 (Texas Supreme Court, 1934)
Commercial Inv. Trust, Inc. v. Smart
69 S.W.2d 805 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
New River Lumber Co. v. Blue Ridge Lumber Co.
146 Tenn. 181 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1921)
Billings v. Southern Supply Co.
194 S.W. 1170 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 S.W. 736, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 620, 1907 Tex. App. LEXIS 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cable-company-v-rogers-texapp-1907.