Sherwood v. Douthit

6 Tex. 224
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1851·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Wheeler, J.

The only question is whether the court had jurisdiction to give judgment for the plaintiff upon the verdict, it being for an amount less than one hundred dollars.

The plaintiff’s demand as set forth in his petition, and not the amount of the verdict, is in general the criterion by which to determine the question of jurisdiction. Where the plaintiff sues for an amount within the jurisdiction of the court, and there is no plea to the jurisdiction, the court may give judgment, though the jury return a verdict for a less sum than that which was requisite to give jurisdiction, unless it appear that the plaintiff in stating his demand improperly sought to give jurisdiction where it did not rightfully belong. (Tarbox v. Kennon, 3 Tex. R., 7: Austin & Clapp v. Jordan, 4 Id.; Graham o.Roder, Id.)

The court appears to have dismissed the case upon the sole ground that the verdict was for a less sum than one hundred dollars. This was error, for which the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed.

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

Sherwood v. Douthit, 6 Tex. 224 (Tex. 1851).

6 Tex. 224 (Sherwood v. Douthit) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Jeffrey
38 S.W.2d 374 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Peil v. Warren
187 S.W. 1052 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Territory v. Hamakua Mill Co.
23 Haw. 1 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1915)
Hoffman v. Cleburne Building & Loan Ass'n
22 S.W. 154 (Texas Supreme Court, 1893)
Collins v. Warren
63 Tex. 311 (Texas Supreme Court, 1885)
Dwyer v. Bassett & Bassett
63 Tex. 274 (Texas Supreme Court, 1885)
Fitzpatrick v. Small
1 White & W. 644 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1881)
Roberts v. Wimberly
41 Tex. 449 (Texas Supreme Court, 1874)