Madison v. Martinez

56 S.W.2d 908, 1933 Tex. App. LEXIS 251
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 14, 1933
DocketNo. 11084.
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 56 S.W.2d 908 (Madison v. Martinez) 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
Madison v. Martinez, 56 S.W.2d 908, 1933 Tex. App. LEXIS 251 (Tex. Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

JONES, Chief Justice.

At a former day of this term, this cause was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 1 In the motion for rehearing, our attention is called to the fact that, in the judgment in favor of appellee in the forcible entry and detainer suit, judgment was also entered in favor of appellee against appellant in the sum of $461, as damages. Appellant’s brief only assigns error on that portion of the judgment against appellant on the plea of forcible entry and detainer and authorizing a writ of restitution. No appeal lies from the county qourt to this court on such an order, but, under the terms of article 3992, R. S. 1925, an appeal can be prosecuted from a judgment for money damages in excess of $100. Appellant contends that, because the money judgment in the instant case is in excess of $100, ■this court is given jurisdiction of the entire subject-matter of the judgment. We do not understand this to be the law. Rose v. Skiles (Tex.Civ.App.) 245 S. W. 127; Boyle v. Grubbs (Tex. Civ. App.) 268 S. W. 277.

There isi no assignment of error contesting the amount of the money judgment, and hence no power of review is conferred by the appeal on this portion Of the judgment. However, because of the money judgment of $461, we set aside the order heretofore entered dismissing the appeal, and affirm the portion of the judgment awarding damages.

Affirmed.

1

No opinion filed.

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

Related

Housing Authority, City of Edgewood v. Sanders
693 S.W.2d 2 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Lee McGuire 1900 Co. v. INVENTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.
566 S.W.2d 95 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Williamson v. Johnson
492 S.W.2d 327 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Walzel v. Southern Realty Corp.
245 S.W.2d 758 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1952)
Keils v. Waldron
240 S.W.2d 788 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1951)
Kendall v. Johnson
212 S.W.2d 232 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1948)
Gillam v. Baker
195 S.W.2d 826 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1946)
St. Matthews Methodist Church v. Watrous
191 S.W.2d 489 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1945)
Orange Laundry Co. v. Stark
179 S.W.2d 841 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1944)
Davis v. Burnett
179 S.W.2d 1014 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1944)
Cambell v. Caillavet
179 S.W.2d 430 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1943)
Brown v. Grant
119 S.W.2d 185 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 S.W.2d 908, 1933 Tex. App. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madison-v-martinez-texapp-1933.