San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Schaeffer

Court of Appeals of Texas

San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Schaeffer

179 S.W. 540, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 946

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 20, 1915

DocketNo. 5505.

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.W. 540 (San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Schaeffer) 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

San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Schaeffer, 179 S.W. 540, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 946 (Tex. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

CARL, J.

This is a suit in tort for damages to an automobile, which damage is laid at $975, together with legal interest thereon from July 3, 1912. The original petition does not appear in the transcript, but the petition upon which the cause was tried was filed subsequent to July 24, 1914. This petition does not disclose the amount sued for in the original petition.

[1] It has been the practice of this court, where the amended petition would show an amount beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court, and yet the record did not contain the original petition or show what the amount originally sued for was, to reverse the judgment and remand the cause, instead of reversing and dismissing it.

[2] It is well established that in an action in tort interest is a part of the damages. Baker v. Smelser, 88 Tex. 26, 29 S. W. 378, 33 L. R. A. 163; Dwyer v. Bassett, 29 S. W. 815; Schulz v. Tessman, 92 Tex. 488, 49 S. W. 1032; Railway Co. v. Faulkner, 118 S. W. 748; Ry. Co. v. Flory, 118 S. W. 1116; Ry. Co. v. Womble, 124 S. W. 111; Crowdus et al. v. Kahn Tailoring Co., 136 S. W. 1136.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

CARL, J.

This is a suit in tort for damages to an automobile, which damage is laid at $975, together with legal interest thereon from July 3, 1912. The original petition does not appear in the transcript, but the petition upon which the cause was tried was filed subsequent to July 24, 1914. This petition does not disclose the amount sued for in the original petition.

[1] It has been the practice of this court, where the amended petition would show an amount beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court, and yet the record did not contain the original petition or show what the amount originally sued for was, to reverse the judgment and remand the cause, instead of reversing and dismissing it.

[2] It is well established that in an action in tort interest is a part of the damages. Baker v. Smelser, 88 Tex. 26, 29 S. W. 378, 33 L. R. A. 163; Dwyer v. Bassett, 29 S. W. 815; Schulz v. Tessman, 92 Tex. 488, 49 S. W. 1032; Railway Co. v. Faulkner, 118 S. W. 748; Ry. Co. v. Flory, 118 S. W. 1116; Ry. Co. v. Womble, 124 S. W. 111; Crowdus et al. v. Kahn Tailoring Co., 136 S. W. 1136.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.W. 540, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/san-antonio-a-p-ry-co-v-schaeffer-texapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack