Tufts v. Hodges

Court of Appeals of Texas

Tufts v. Hodges

28 S.W. 110, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 240, 1894 Tex. App. LEXIS 141

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedSeptember 26, 1894

DocketNo. 474.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 28 S.W. 110 (Tufts v. Hodges) 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

Tufts v. Hodges, 28 S.W. 110, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 240, 1894 Tex. App. LEXIS 141 (Tex. Ct. App. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

BAINEY, Associate Justice.

Appellant sued appellee in the Justice Court to recover on eight promissory notes 'aggregating $80, and to foreclose a lien npon a soda fountain worth $150, for which the notes were executed by appellee. Judgment was rendered for Hodges in the Justice Court, and Tufts appealed to the County Court. While the appeal was pending in the County Court, the soda fountain was destroyed by fire, and when the case was tried in that court the subject of controversy was the amount of the notes — $80 and interest. A trial in the County Court resulted in a judgment in favor of Hodges, from which Tufts attempts to perfect an appeal to this court.

We are met at the threshold of investigation with the proposition that this court has no. jurisdiction of the appeal, as the amount in controversy does not exceed $100. This court can only entertain appeals from the County Court when the amount in controversy exceeds $100, exclusive of interest and costs. Bev. Stats., art. 1380.

The property on which the lien existed having been burned before the trial of the. cause in the County Court, it was eliminated from the controversy, and the only thing that was tried in the County Court was the question of indebtedness, as evidenced by the notes, which amounted to $80, exclusive of interest and costs.

The amount in controversy not exceeding $100 at the time of the trial, the judgment of the County Court was final, from which appellant could take no appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

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

BAINEY, Associate Justice.

Appellant sued appellee in the Justice Court to recover on eight promissory notes 'aggregating $80, and to foreclose a lien npon a soda fountain worth $150, for which the notes were executed by appellee. Judgment was rendered for Hodges in the Justice Court, and Tufts appealed to the County Court. While the appeal was pending in the County Court, the soda fountain was destroyed by fire, and when the case was tried in that court the subject of controversy was the amount of the notes — $80 and interest. A trial in the County Court resulted in a judgment in favor of Hodges, from which Tufts attempts to perfect an appeal to this court.

We are met at the threshold of investigation with the proposition that this court has no. jurisdiction of the appeal, as the amount in controversy does not exceed $100. This court can only entertain appeals from the County Court when the amount in controversy exceeds $100, exclusive of interest and costs. Bev. Stats., art. 1380.

The property on which the lien existed having been burned before the trial of the. cause in the County Court, it was eliminated from the controversy, and the only thing that was tried in the County Court was the question of indebtedness, as evidenced by the notes, which amounted to $80, exclusive of interest and costs.

The amount in controversy not exceeding $100 at the time of the trial, the judgment of the County Court was final, from which appellant could take no appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 S.W. 110, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 240, 1894 Tex. App. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tufts-v-hodges-texapp-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack