Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Trammel

Court of Appeals of Texas

Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Trammel

180 S.W. 910, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 1095

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 18, 1915

DocketNo. 1529.

StatusPublished

This text of 180 S.W. 910 (Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Trammel) 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

Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Trammel, 180 S.W. 910, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 1095 (Tex. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, C. J.

Appellant sued appellee G. I. Trammel, seeking a recovery against him of $124, alleged to be due it on a promissory note made by him, and, having procured the issuance of a writ of attachment out of a justice court, caused it to be levied on a bale of lint cotton of the value of $48. Ap-pellee Mrs. G. I. Trammel, wife of said G. I. Trammel, claimed that the bale of cotton belonged to her as a part of her separate estate, and presented to the officer who levied the writ on it an affidavit and claim bond, entitling her to a trial of the right of property in the cotton as between her and appellant. In the justice court, and also in the county court, on an appeal thereto prosecuted by appellant, judgment was rendered in her favor for the cotton. This appeal is from the judgment rendered by the last court mentioned.

We are of opinion appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that this court has not power to hear and determine it, should be sustained. The jurisdiction of this court does not extend to cases “of which the county court has appellate jurisdiction, when the judgment, or amount in controversy, or the judgment rendered,” does not exceed $100, exclusive of interest and costs. Article 1589, Vernon’s Statutes. The “amount in controversy” in the trial of the right of property suit was the value of the bale of cotton, to wit, $48. Erwin v. Blanks, 60 Tex. 583; Harris v. Hood, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. § 573. The judgment appealed from was for that bale of cotton.

The motion will be granted, and the appeal dismissed.

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

WILLSON, C. J.

Appellant sued appellee G. I. Trammel, seeking a recovery against him of $124, alleged to be due it on a promissory note made by him, and, having procured the issuance of a writ of attachment out of a justice court, caused it to be levied on a bale of lint cotton of the value of $48. Ap-pellee Mrs. G. I. Trammel, wife of said G. I. Trammel, claimed that the bale of cotton belonged to her as a part of her separate estate, and presented to the officer who levied the writ on it an affidavit and claim bond, entitling her to a trial of the right of property in the cotton as between her and appellant. In the justice court, and also in the county court, on an appeal thereto prosecuted by appellant, judgment was rendered in her favor for the cotton. This appeal is from the judgment rendered by the last court mentioned.

We are of opinion appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that this court has not power to hear and determine it, should be sustained. The jurisdiction of this court does not extend to cases “of which the county court has appellate jurisdiction, when the judgment, or amount in controversy, or the judgment rendered,” does not exceed $100, exclusive of interest and costs. Article 1589, Vernon’s Statutes. The “amount in controversy” in the trial of the right of property suit was the value of the bale of cotton, to wit, $48. Erwin v. Blanks, 60 Tex. 583; Harris v. Hood, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. § 573. The judgment appealed from was for that bale of cotton.

The motion will be granted, and the appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.W. 910, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 1095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spaulding-mfg-co-v-trammel-texapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack