Stricklin v. Joslin

Court of Appeals of Texas

Stricklin v. Joslin

7 S.W.2d 165, 1928 Tex. App. LEXIS 544

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 16, 1928

DocketNo. 8007.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 S.W.2d 165 (Stricklin v. Joslin) 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

Stricklin v. Joslin, 7 S.W.2d 165, 1928 Tex. App. LEXIS 544 (Tex. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

FLY, C. J.

This suit was brought by ap-pellee against appellant in the justice court as an action of forcible detainer for the failure and refusal of appellant, to surrender the premises of appellee after the rental period had expired, and appellee also claimed damages for such detention in the sum of $150. Appellant claimed to have rented the premises for the years 1927 and 1928, and sought through a cross-action to recover $197.50 due him for labor performed on the place. The justice of the peace rendered judgment that the premises be restored to- appellee and also rendered judgment in favor of appellant against appellee for $75 as compensation for work done by him on the premises. Appellant appealed to the county court, where judgment was rendered for restitution of the premises to appellee.

It is provided in article 3992, Revised Statutes of 1925, which has reference to actions for forcible entry and detainer or forcible detainer:

“The judgment of the county court finally disposing of-the cause shall be conclusive of the litigation, and no further appeal shall be allowed, except where the judgment shall be for damages in an amount exceeding one hundred dollars.”

The action is a summary proceeding to restore premises to an owner unlawfully entered upon and detained, or merely detained by another person, and the object of the statute would be defeated if a person could unlawfully withhold land from the owner and then postpone relief indefinitely by one appeal after another. This case comes within the purview of the statute making the judgment of the county court final. It involved a forcible detainer of property, and there was no judgment for damages. Emerson v. Emerson (Tex. Civ. App.) 35 S. W. 425; Rose v. Skiles (Tex. Civ. App.) 245 S. W. 127.

This court has no jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed. '

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

FLY, C. J.

This suit was brought by ap-pellee against appellant in the justice court as an action of forcible detainer for the failure and refusal of appellant, to surrender the premises of appellee after the rental period had expired, and appellee also claimed damages for such detention in the sum of $150. Appellant claimed to have rented the premises for the years 1927 and 1928, and sought through a cross-action to recover $197.50 due him for labor performed on the place. The justice of the peace rendered judgment that the premises be restored to- appellee and also rendered judgment in favor of appellant against appellee for $75 as compensation for work done by him on the premises. Appellant appealed to the county court, where judgment was rendered for restitution of the premises to appellee.

It is provided in article 3992, Revised Statutes of 1925, which has reference to actions for forcible entry and detainer or forcible detainer:

“The judgment of the county court finally disposing of-the cause shall be conclusive of the litigation, and no further appeal shall be allowed, except where the judgment shall be for damages in an amount exceeding one hundred dollars.”

The action is a summary proceeding to restore premises to an owner unlawfully entered upon and detained, or merely detained by another person, and the object of the statute would be defeated if a person could unlawfully withhold land from the owner and then postpone relief indefinitely by one appeal after another. This case comes within the purview of the statute making the judgment of the county court final. It involved a forcible detainer of property, and there was no judgment for damages. Emerson v. Emerson (Tex. Civ. App.) 35 S. W. 425; Rose v. Skiles (Tex. Civ. App.) 245 S. W. 127.

This court has no jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed. '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 S.W.2d 165, 1928 Tex. App. LEXIS 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stricklin-v-joslin-texapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack