Thompson v. Dailey

Court of Appeals of Texas

Thompson v. Dailey

95 S.W.2d 1007, 1936 Tex. App. LEXIS 711

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 19, 1936

DocketNo. 2915.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 95 S.W.2d 1007 (Thompson v. Dailey) 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

Thompson v. Dailey, 95 S.W.2d 1007, 1936 Tex. App. LEXIS 711 (Tex. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKER, Chief Justice.

Fundamental error appears on the face of the record in this case, which originated in the county court of Houston county. The action was by defendants in error against plaintiff in error and her husband upon' a promissory note in the sum of $472.46, and to foreclose a chattel mortgage lien on. a Chevrolet truck and a Chevrolet coach, with no allegation as to the value of the mortgaged property. On trial to the court without a jury, judgment was rendered to the effect that defendants in error recover against plaintiff in error all the relief prayed for, and that they recover nothing against her husband. It was held by Judge Critz, now a member of .the Supreme Court, speaking for the Commission of Appeals in Campsey v. Brumley, 55 S.W.(2d) 810, that the plaintiff’s petition in the county court must “affirmatively show jurisdiction,” and that a judgment rendered by a county court on a *1008 petition which fails affirmatively to plead facts bringing the case within its jurisdiction “presents fundamental and reversible error.” Judge Critz cited many authorities in support of that conclusion. See, also, Tant v. Baldwin Piano Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 217 S.W. 239, and authorities therein cited, and Booher v. Brown (Tex.Civ.App.) 87 S.W. (2d) 330, and authorities therein cited, and Whittle Music Co. v. Lammons (Tex.Civ.App.) 93 S.W. (2d) 233, and authorities therein cited. In Olloqui v. Duran, 92 S.W. (2d) 436, 437, this very point was again before the Supreme Court; speaking for the Commission of Appeals in that case, Judge German said: “The Supreme Court has in the case of Campsey v. Brumley, 55 S.W. (2d) 810, directly settled the proposition that, in a case in the county court seeking to foreclose a mortgage lien, a petition which does not allege the value of the mortgaged property is not sufficient to support a judgment, and the question is one which can be raised on appeal as fundamental error.”

For the reasons discussed, the judgment of the lower court must be reversed and the cause remanded, and it is accordingly so ordered.

This appeal was originally filed in the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals and transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court.

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

WALKER, Chief Justice.

Fundamental error appears on the face of the record in this case, which originated in the county court of Houston county. The action was by defendants in error against plaintiff in error and her husband upon' a promissory note in the sum of $472.46, and to foreclose a chattel mortgage lien on. a Chevrolet truck and a Chevrolet coach, with no allegation as to the value of the mortgaged property. On trial to the court without a jury, judgment was rendered to the effect that defendants in error recover against plaintiff in error all the relief prayed for, and that they recover nothing against her husband. It was held by Judge Critz, now a member of .the Supreme Court, speaking for the Commission of Appeals in Campsey v. Brumley, 55 S.W.(2d) 810, that the plaintiff’s petition in the county court must “affirmatively show jurisdiction,” and that a judgment rendered by a county court on a *1008 petition which fails affirmatively to plead facts bringing the case within its jurisdiction “presents fundamental and reversible error.” Judge Critz cited many authorities in support of that conclusion. See, also, Tant v. Baldwin Piano Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 217 S.W. 239, and authorities therein cited, and Booher v. Brown (Tex.Civ.App.) 87 S.W. (2d) 330, and authorities therein cited, and Whittle Music Co. v. Lammons (Tex.Civ.App.) 93 S.W. (2d) 233, and authorities therein cited. In Olloqui v. Duran, 92 S.W. (2d) 436, 437, this very point was again before the Supreme Court; speaking for the Commission of Appeals in that case, Judge German said: “The Supreme Court has in the case of Campsey v. Brumley, 55 S.W. (2d) 810, directly settled the proposition that, in a case in the county court seeking to foreclose a mortgage lien, a petition which does not allege the value of the mortgaged property is not sufficient to support a judgment, and the question is one which can be raised on appeal as fundamental error.”

For the reasons discussed, the judgment of the lower court must be reversed and the cause remanded, and it is accordingly so ordered.

This appeal was originally filed in the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals and transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.W.2d 1007, 1936 Tex. App. LEXIS 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-dailey-texapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack