Welder v. First State Bank of Skidmore

Court of Appeals of Texas

Welder v. First State Bank of Skidmore

37 S.W.2d 848, 1931 Tex. App. LEXIS 340

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 11, 1931

DocketNo. 8570.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 37 S.W.2d 848 (Welder v. First State Bank of Skidmore) 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

Welder v. First State Bank of Skidmore, 37 S.W.2d 848, 1931 Tex. App. LEXIS 340 (Tex. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

FLY, C. J.

This writ of error was prosecuted from a judgment for $692.16, and a foreclosure of a chattel mortgage on twenty-five cows and fifteen calves.

The only assignment of error assails the judgment on the ground of a want of jurisdiction in the county court to render a judgment under the allegations of the petition, in that the value of the cattle on which the mortgage was given was not alleged. It is contended that a failure to give the value of the cattle was a failure to allege such facts as would give a court of limited jurisdiction power and authority to render a judgment.

There is nothing in the record that tends to show that the cattle had a less value than $1,000, and if there be a want of jurisdiction it must rest on the proposition that a failure to allege the value ,of the cattle was fundamental error and rendered any judgment rendered by virtue of such pleadings null and void. The decisions of this court, as jvell as other appellate courts of the state, hold that when a debt, of which the county court has jurisdiction, is secured by a chattel mortgage, the jurisdiction is fixed by the value of the property described in the mortgage. The ruling is uniform and unbroken. Richardson v. Hethcock (Tex. Civ. App.) 173 S. W. 1006; Hodgkinson v. Hartwell (Tex. Civ. App.) 226 S. W. 457; Marshall v. Stowers (Tex. Civ. App.) 167 S. W. 230; Lunsford v. Pearce (Tex. Civ. App.) 19 S.W.(2d) 71.

We will not dismiss this cause, as prayed for by appellant, as it is more than probable that he owes the debt, but will give the ap-pellee an opportunity to amend so as to fix jurisdiction and collect his debt

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

FLY, C. J.

This writ of error was prosecuted from a judgment for $692.16, and a foreclosure of a chattel mortgage on twenty-five cows and fifteen calves.

The only assignment of error assails the judgment on the ground of a want of jurisdiction in the county court to render a judgment under the allegations of the petition, in that the value of the cattle on which the mortgage was given was not alleged. It is contended that a failure to give the value of the cattle was a failure to allege such facts as would give a court of limited jurisdiction power and authority to render a judgment.

There is nothing in the record that tends to show that the cattle had a less value than $1,000, and if there be a want of jurisdiction it must rest on the proposition that a failure to allege the value ,of the cattle was fundamental error and rendered any judgment rendered by virtue of such pleadings null and void. The decisions of this court, as jvell as other appellate courts of the state, hold that when a debt, of which the county court has jurisdiction, is secured by a chattel mortgage, the jurisdiction is fixed by the value of the property described in the mortgage. The ruling is uniform and unbroken. Richardson v. Hethcock (Tex. Civ. App.) 173 S. W. 1006; Hodgkinson v. Hartwell (Tex. Civ. App.) 226 S. W. 457; Marshall v. Stowers (Tex. Civ. App.) 167 S. W. 230; Lunsford v. Pearce (Tex. Civ. App.) 19 S.W.(2d) 71.

We will not dismiss this cause, as prayed for by appellant, as it is more than probable that he owes the debt, but will give the ap-pellee an opportunity to amend so as to fix jurisdiction and collect his debt

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 S.W.2d 848, 1931 Tex. App. LEXIS 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welder-v-first-state-bank-of-skidmore-texapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack