Chappell v. McIntyre

• Citation: 3 Tex. 10
• Parties: LOVE AND CHAPPELL v. HUGH MCINTYRE
• Decision Date: 31 December 1848
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas

3 Tex. 10

LOVE AND CHAPPELL

v.HUGH MCINTYRE

Supreme Court of Texas.

December Term, 1848.

Appeal from Washington County.

The district courts and courts of justices of the peace have concurrent jurisdiction where the amount in controversy is one hundred dollars, exclusive of interest.

There is no constitutional limit to the jurisdiction of justices of the peace. It depends entirely upon legislative enactments.

Under our system of pleading, the answer must set forth all special matter of avoidance of the cause of action. If this be omitted, the testimony of such matter must be excluded.

If an amendment is not asked before the trial is gone into, the judge has no discretion. He has no legal authority then to allow it.

No paper will be considered as filed in a cause, unless the clerk shall have indorsed thereon the day on which it was filed, and sign his name thereto.

This suit was brought on a note of hand for one hundred dollars, given by the appellants to the appellee, guardian of Sarah Jane McIntyre, minor heir of James McIntyre, deceased.

There was a judgment by default, on the 1st day of December, 1846, which was set aside on the 5th of the same month, and the defendants plead a want of a legal service of process, and a general denial of indebtedness. The cause came on for trial on the 22d of December. On the trial, the defendants read their first pleas to the jury, and offered to read another plea of special matter in avoidance of their note, to wit: that it was given for the purchase of property that did not belong to the guardian, but belonged to the vacant succession of James McIntyre, whose estate had never been settled, and no distribution made. This plea had been handed to the clerk three days before trial. It had not been filed by the clerk, nor his name indorsed on it; nor was there any application to the court, prior to going into the trial, for leave to file the additional plea. The plea was rejected, and the plea in abatement does not appear to have been relied on, as it was not sworn to; and, from the return, the process seems to have been regularly served. The parties went to trial, on the general denial of indebtedness, and there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

On the trial, the appellants offered to give in evidence the special matter set forth in the rejected plea, but the court refused to receive the evidence; to which refusal the appellants excepted. The appellants moved the court for a new trial; which motion was overruled, and an appeal taken.

GILLESPIE for appellants.

WEBB for appellee.

Mr. Justice LIPSCOMB, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court as follows:

The first ground on which this court is asked to reverse the judgment is, that the court below had no jurisdiction, as the note sued on was within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace.

The act of our legislature organizing the district court, and defining its powers and jurisdiction, in the latter part of the 2d section, reads as follows: “Also, of all suits for the recovery of land, of all cases of divorce and alimony, and all suits, complaints and pleas whatever, without regard to any distinction whatever, between law and equity, when the matter in controversy shall be valued at, or amount to, one hundred dollars or more, exclusive of interest,” etc. [Laws State of Texas, 1 vol. p. 201.]

The 13th section of the act to organize justices' courts, and to define the powers and jurisdiction of the same, is in the following words, i. e.: “That justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction over all suits and actions for the recovery of money on any account, bill, bond, promissory note, or other written instrument, or for specific articles, where the amount or value does not exceed one hundred dollars, exclusive of the interest, costs and damages.” [[[[[[1 Vol. Laws State...