Heidenheimer Bros. v. Marx & Kempner

1 White & W. 68
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 19, 1881·No. No. 1746, Op. Book No. 3, p. 537·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§171. Jurisdiction; want of, will be fatal whether pleaded or not. If the court below had no jurisdiction of the subject matter-of the suit, and that fact is apparent of record, this court, on appeal, will take cognizance of such want of jurisdiction, though the question was not raised in the court below. [Hardeman v. Morgan, 48 Tex. 103; Lane v. Doak, 48 Tex. 227; Mawthe v. Crozier, 50 Tex. 153.]

§ 173. Jurisdiction; trial of right of property. In an action for the trial of the right of property, where [69]*69the value of the property is $500 or over that amount, the district court has exclusive jurisdiction. [Const, art. V, sec. 8; R. S. art. 1164; Goddard & Co. v. Frieberg, Klein & Co. (Ct. App.) post, p. 69.] Where the above rule is fully discussed and settled.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Heidenheimer Bros. v. Marx & Kempner, 1 White & W. 68 (Tex. Ct. App. 1881).

1 White & W. 68 (Heidenheimer Bros. v. Marx & Kempner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

B. Hardeman & Son v. Morgan
48 Tex. 103 (Texas Supreme Court, 1877)
Lane v. Doak
48 Tex. 227 (Texas Supreme Court, 1877)
Mawthe v. Alexander Crozier & Co.
50 Tex. 153 (Texas Supreme Court, 1878)