Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Hughes

98 S.W. 405, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 436, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 532
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 8, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 98 S.W. 405 (Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Hughes) 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
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Hughes, 98 S.W. 405, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 436, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 532 (Tex. Ct. App. 1906).

Opinion

RAINEY, Chief Justige.

This suit originated in the Justice Court, where a judgment was rendered for the plaintiff Hughes. The railway company appealed to the County Court, where Hughes amended his-claim for damages, increasing it to a sum amounting to over two hundred dollars. The railway company excepted to the amendment on the ground that the amount claimed exceeded the jurisdiction of the Justice Court, which exception was overruled. The case was tried and judgment was there rendered for less than two hundred dollars,- from which judgment the railway company appeals to this court.

The exception to plaintiff’s amendment should have been sustained. In cases appealed from the Justice Court to the County Court, the law prescribes that they shall be tried de nova, and it is not permissible to increase by -amendment the "amount in controversy beyond the sum of two hundred dollars, and the error is not cured by the court’s failure to include in his charge the items of damage, that are embraced in the amendment that increase the original claim beyond the sum of two hundred dollars. The case was tried on the amendment, which, of course," involved the sum beyond two hundred dollars; and the County' Court had no right to determine on appeal such increased amount.

For the error indicated, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Stanley v. Hicks
272 S.W.2d 917 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1954)
Addison v. Salyer
40 S.E.2d 260 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1946)
Texas Power & Light Co. v. Hale
283 S.W. 495 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1926)
Texas Power & Light Co. v. Hale
276 S.W. 746 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Dockery v. Shaw Rogers
260 S.W. 909 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Davis v. Hagan
255 S.W. 484 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Ball v. Rio Grande Canal Co.
256 S.W. 678 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1923)
De Shazo v. Eubank
191 S.W. 369 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Tracy v. Sumida
161 P. 503 (California Court of Appeal, 1916)
Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Lewis
185 S.W. 593 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Vicars v. Tharp
174 S.W. 949 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Western Assur. Co. v. Hillyer-Deutsch-Jarratt Co.
167 S.W. 816 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Barnett v. Ward
144 S.W. 697 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Taylor v. Lee
139 S.W. 908 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 S.W. 405, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 436, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/missouri-kansas-texas-railway-co-v-hughes-texapp-1906.