Dromgoole Bros. v. L. A. Epstein & Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Dromgoole Bros. v. L. A. Epstein & Co.

173 S.W. 1006, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 47

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 10, 1915

DocketNo. 5422.

StatusPublished

This text of 173 S.W. 1006 (Dromgoole Bros. v. L. A. Epstein & Co.) 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

Dromgoole Bros. v. L. A. Epstein & Co., 173 S.W. 1006, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 47 (Tex. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

FLY, C. J.

This is a suit on an account, for $169.26, which was instituted in the justice’s court by appellees against appellants. Appellants admitted that they were justly indebted to appellees in the sum of $143.44, but filed a cross-action, alleging that appel-lees were indebted to them in the sum - of $287.70, but only prayed for $30. The court instructed a verdict for appellees in the sum of $143.44. There is no statement of facts in the record.

[1 ] Appellants have failed to file a brief in this court, but have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, and appellees have filed motions which are styled “Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal of Appellant and Affirm Judgment of the Lower Court.” Of course, that would be an impossibility; but, as the motions show the correctness of the judgment, they serve the purpose of a brief on the part of appellees. Davison v. Keeton, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 65, 73 S. W. 1083; Ball v. Dignowity, 68 S. W. 800; Cox v. Hickman, 110 S. W. 549; Beck v. Hancock, 122 S. W. 419.

[2] The offset pleaded was not within the jurisdiction of the justice’s court, and that court being without jurisdiction of the cross-action, the county court could not acquire jurisdiction. Times Pub. Co. v. Hill, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 389, 81 S. W. 806; Railway v. Canyon Coal Co., 102 Tex. 478, 119 S. W. 294.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

FLY, C. J.

This is a suit on an account, for $169.26, which was instituted in the justice’s court by appellees against appellants. Appellants admitted that they were justly indebted to appellees in the sum of $143.44, but filed a cross-action, alleging that appel-lees were indebted to them in the sum - of $287.70, but only prayed for $30. The court instructed a verdict for appellees in the sum of $143.44. There is no statement of facts in the record.

[1 ] Appellants have failed to file a brief in this court, but have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, and appellees have filed motions which are styled “Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal of Appellant and Affirm Judgment of the Lower Court.” Of course, that would be an impossibility; but, as the motions show the correctness of the judgment, they serve the purpose of a brief on the part of appellees. Davison v. Keeton, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 65, 73 S. W. 1083; Ball v. Dignowity, 68 S. W. 800; Cox v. Hickman, 110 S. W. 549; Beck v. Hancock, 122 S. W. 419.

[2] The offset pleaded was not within the jurisdiction of the justice’s court, and that court being without jurisdiction of the cross-action, the county court could not acquire jurisdiction. Times Pub. Co. v. Hill, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 389, 81 S. W. 806; Railway v. Canyon Coal Co., 102 Tex. 478, 119 S. W. 294.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 S.W. 1006, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dromgoole-bros-v-l-a-epstein-co-texapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack