Smart v. Bank of Logansport, LA.

249 S.W. 521, 1923 Tex. App. LEXIS 688
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 16, 1923
DocketNo. 923.
StatusPublished

This text of 249 S.W. 521 (Smart v. Bank of Logansport, LA.) 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
Smart v. Bank of Logansport, LA., 249 S.W. 521, 1923 Tex. App. LEXIS 688 (Tex. Ct. App. 1923).

Opinion

O’QUINN, J.

This suit was brought in the county court of Panola county, Tex., by defendant in error, the Bank of Logansport of Louisiana, against M. B. Smart, plaintiff in error, asking for judgment on a promissory note for the sum of $400, and to foreclose a mortgage lien on a one-half interest in a sawi mill situated in Panola county, Tex., two mules, one mare, and a half interest in all the timber owned by M. B. Smart and J. M. Shahan.

Plaintiff in error was duly cited to appear and answer, but wholly made default, and judgment was rendered against him on the note and for foreclosure of. the mortgage lien on. the property named in the mortgage. From this judgment' he prosecutes this writ of error.

Plaintiff in error presents several propositions all to the effect that the county court being a court of limited jurisdiction, it must affirmatively appear from plaintiff’s petition that the amount sued for is within the jurisdiction of the court, and that there being no allegations in plaintiff’s petition as to the value of the property upon which foreclosure of the mortgage lien was sought, the court erred in rendering judgment.

The assignment is sustained. There is no allegation as to the value of the property upon which the mortgage rests, and for which foreclosure is asked. This was necessary to show that the court had jurisdiction. Cotulla v. Goggan, 77 Tex. 32, 13 S. W. 742; Bates v. Hill (Tex. Civ. App.) 144 S. W. 288; Randals v. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 162 S. W. 1190; Tant v. Piano Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 217 S. W. 239; Stricklin v. Arrington (Tex. Civ. App.) 141 S. W. 189.

The judgment is reversed and. the cause remanded.

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

Related

Tant v. Baldwin Piano Co.
217 S.W. 239 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Randals v. Pecos Valley State Bank
162 S.W. 1190 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Bates v. Hill
144 S.W. 288 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Cotulla v. Thomas Goggan & Bros.
13 S.W. 742 (Texas Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
249 S.W. 521, 1923 Tex. App. LEXIS 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smart-v-bank-of-logansport-la-texapp-1923.