Richardson v. Renfro Hardware Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Richardson v. Renfro Hardware Co.

33 S.W.2d 466

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 17, 1930

DocketNo. 3521.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 S.W.2d 466 (Richardson v. Renfro Hardware Co.) 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

Richardson v. Renfro Hardware Co., 33 S.W.2d 466 (Tex. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

RANDOLPH, J.

This suit was instituted in the county court of Wilbarger county, Tex., by appellees against appellant on two promissory notes, one for the sum of $160 and the other for $170, and on an open account for 22.85, and also to foreclose a chattel mortgage lien given by defendant to plaintiff on a two-row John Deere lister and on a two-row John Deere cultivator.

The judgment is attacked by appellant for the reason that the petition does not allege the value'" of the property upon which the mortgage is sought to be foreclosed to be within an amount giving the county court jurisdiction. This is urged as fundamental error. We sustain appellant’s .contention. Myers v. Dodson & Son (Tex. Civ. App.) 254 S.W. 1112; Dubois v. Walters (Tex. Civ. App.) 289 S. W. 751; Cotuello v. Goggan, 77 Tex. 32, 13 S.W. 742; Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Rucker, 99 Tex. 125, 87 S.W. 818; Jaco v. Nash (Tex. Civ. App.) 269 S.W. 1089.

We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand the cause for a new trial.

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

RANDOLPH, J.

This suit was instituted in the county court of Wilbarger county, Tex., by appellees against appellant on two promissory notes, one for the sum of $160 and the other for $170, and on an open account for 22.85, and also to foreclose a chattel mortgage lien given by defendant to plaintiff on a two-row John Deere lister and on a two-row John Deere cultivator.

The judgment is attacked by appellant for the reason that the petition does not allege the value'" of the property upon which the mortgage is sought to be foreclosed to be within an amount giving the county court jurisdiction. This is urged as fundamental error. We sustain appellant’s .contention. Myers v. Dodson & Son (Tex. Civ. App.) 254 S.W. 1112; Dubois v. Walters (Tex. Civ. App.) 289 S. W. 751; Cotuello v. Goggan, 77 Tex. 32, 13 S.W. 742; Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Rucker, 99 Tex. 125, 87 S.W. 818; Jaco v. Nash (Tex. Civ. App.) 269 S.W. 1089.

We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand the cause for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 S.W.2d 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-renfro-hardware-co-texapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack