Houston Harbor Sales Co. v. Levand

Court of Appeals of Texas

Houston Harbor Sales Co. v. Levand

206 S.W. 379, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 856

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 7, 1918

DocketNo. 7619.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 206 S.W. 379 (Houston Harbor Sales Co. v. Levand) 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

Houston Harbor Sales Co. v. Levand, 206 S.W. 379, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 856 (Tex. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

GRATES, J.

This suit was originally filed in the county court of Harris county to collect an alleged debt of $125, and to foreclose a chattel mortgage upon, a secondhand automobile securing it. After considering the pleadings alone, no evidence having been offered, the court rendered judgment in ap-pellee’s favor against both appellants for the amount sued for, together with foreclosure upon th’e automobile, from which the Sales Company and Adkins appeal.

[1,2] There was no allegation, in the pleadings of any of the parties as to the value of the automobile, nor, as stated, any evidence upon that or any other matter introduced.

In. these circumstances, appellants have filed a motion in this court asking that the judgment be reversed and the cause ordered dismissed, on the ground that the county court had no original, nor has this court any appellate, jurisdiction over the cause. Having taken the motion with the case and examined the entire record presented, it is found that the facts as to the allegations of the petition and the absence of any evidence as to the value of the automobile were as stated. Since, in a suit to foreclose a chattel mortgage, the amount in controversy is the alleged value of the property (Stricklin v. Arrington et al., 141 S. W. 189 [2]), it does not affirmatively appear here that the county court had jurisdiction to render the judgment, which condition necessitates a reversal; but as there is mere silence as to the value of the automobile, and n.o showing otherwise that the court below would not have had jurisdiction, if its value had been alleged, we think the proper practice is to reverse the judgment and remand, the cause, to afford opportunity for amendment of the pleadings in that respect. Bates v. Hill, 144 S. W. 288; Ware v. Clark, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 356, 125 S. W. 618; Hamilton v. Hannus, 185 S. W. 938. It is accordingly ordered that the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to the trial court to dismiss the ease, unless by proper amendment of his petition in respect to the value of the automobile, the appellee brings the case within the jurisdiction, of that court.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

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

GRATES, J.

This suit was originally filed in the county court of Harris county to collect an alleged debt of $125, and to foreclose a chattel mortgage upon, a secondhand automobile securing it. After considering the pleadings alone, no evidence having been offered, the court rendered judgment in ap-pellee’s favor against both appellants for the amount sued for, together with foreclosure upon th’e automobile, from which the Sales Company and Adkins appeal.

[1,2] There was no allegation, in the pleadings of any of the parties as to the value of the automobile, nor, as stated, any evidence upon that or any other matter introduced.

In. these circumstances, appellants have filed a motion in this court asking that the judgment be reversed and the cause ordered dismissed, on the ground that the county court had no original, nor has this court any appellate, jurisdiction over the cause. Having taken the motion with the case and examined the entire record presented, it is found that the facts as to the allegations of the petition and the absence of any evidence as to the value of the automobile were as stated. Since, in a suit to foreclose a chattel mortgage, the amount in controversy is the alleged value of the property (Stricklin v. Arrington et al., 141 S. W. 189 [2]), it does not affirmatively appear here that the county court had jurisdiction to render the judgment, which condition necessitates a reversal; but as there is mere silence as to the value of the automobile, and n.o showing otherwise that the court below would not have had jurisdiction, if its value had been alleged, we think the proper practice is to reverse the judgment and remand, the cause, to afford opportunity for amendment of the pleadings in that respect. Bates v. Hill, 144 S. W. 288; Ware v. Clark, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 356, 125 S. W. 618; Hamilton v. Hannus, 185 S. W. 938. It is accordingly ordered that the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to the trial court to dismiss the ease, unless by proper amendment of his petition in respect to the value of the automobile, the appellee brings the case within the jurisdiction, of that court.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 S.W. 379, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houston-harbor-sales-co-v-levand-texapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack