Glasscock v. Sinks

Court of Appeals of Texas

Glasscock v. Sinks

185 S.W. 405, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 460

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 5, 1916

DocketNo. 5651.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 185 S.W. 405 (Glasscock v. Sinks) 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

Glasscock v. Sinks, 185 S.W. 405, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 460 (Tex. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

MOURSUND, J.

Appellee, as disclosed by his first amended original petition, sued appellants upon eight promissory notes for $50 each, executed by Mrs. E. R. Glasscock and payable to appellee. He alleged that the payment of said notes was secured by a chattel mortgage upon nine mules, and a copy of said mortgage was attached to the petition. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for his debt and for foreclosure of his chattel mortgage lien.

[1] The value of the mules was not alleged, and the petition, therefore, fails to affirmatively allege facts showing that the court had jurisdiction of the cause of action. Marshall v. Stowers Furniture Co., 167 S. W. 230; Richardson v. Hethcock, 173 S. W. 1006. Our views on this matter are fully stated in the first-cited case.

[2, 3] According to the evidence, the value of the mules greatly exceeded $1,000, and if this be correct plaintiff could not in good faith amend so as to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the county court, but, nevertheless, we will not dismiss the ease, but will reverse the judgment and remand the cause in accordance with the practice heretofore existing in this court, and leave it to the plaintiff to dismiss if the value of the mules is as was testified to upon the trial below.

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

MOURSUND, J.

Appellee, as disclosed by his first amended original petition, sued appellants upon eight promissory notes for $50 each, executed by Mrs. E. R. Glasscock and payable to appellee. He alleged that the payment of said notes was secured by a chattel mortgage upon nine mules, and a copy of said mortgage was attached to the petition. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for his debt and for foreclosure of his chattel mortgage lien.

[1] The value of the mules was not alleged, and the petition, therefore, fails to affirmatively allege facts showing that the court had jurisdiction of the cause of action. Marshall v. Stowers Furniture Co., 167 S. W. 230; Richardson v. Hethcock, 173 S. W. 1006. Our views on this matter are fully stated in the first-cited case.

[2, 3] According to the evidence, the value of the mules greatly exceeded $1,000, and if this be correct plaintiff could not in good faith amend so as to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the county court, but, nevertheless, we will not dismiss the ease, but will reverse the judgment and remand the cause in accordance with the practice heretofore existing in this court, and leave it to the plaintiff to dismiss if the value of the mules is as was testified to upon the trial below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.W. 405, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glasscock-v-sinks-texapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack