Dwyer v. Bassett

• Decision Date: 06 February 1885
• Docket Number: Case No. 1921.
• Citation: 63 Tex. 274
• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Parties: THOMAS DWYER v. BASSETT & BASSETT.

63 Tex. 274

THOMAS DWYER

v.BASSETT & BASSETT.

Case No. 1921.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. 6, 1885.

APPEAL from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. I. B. McFarland.

The petition by appellees alleged that the defendant, in making payment of a debt due by him to the plaintiffs, delivered to plaintiffs a package of money, which he falsely represented to them to contain $1,000, but which in fact contained only $500, and that the plaintiffs, trusting to his representation, and being misled thereby, accepted it as $1,000, and surrendered up to the defendant certain securities which they held for his debt, whereby they were defrauded of the sum of $500; that upon discovering the mistake they demanded of the defendant the payment of said sum of $500 or the return of the securities, which demand was refused. That the defendants' false representation was knowingly and wilfully made, with intent to deceive and defraud; wherefore they prayed for their damages, actual and exemplary, including the attorneys' fees necessarily incurred in seeking redress of the injury by suit.

Dwyer answered by general denial, and claimed that the sum paid canceled the security which was delivered up to him.

Searcey & Bryan, for appellant, on the charge of the court as erroneous, cited: Smith v. Sherwood, 2 Tex., 462; H. & T. C. R'y Co. v. Shirley, 54 Tex., 142; R. S., art. 1317, p. 208; McAfee v. Robertson, 41 Tex., 357; Railroad Co. v. Murphy, 46 Tex., 367;Hodde v. State, 8 Tex. Ct. App., 385; Searcy v. State, 1 Tex. Ct. App., 460; Strickland v. State, 7 Tex. Ct. App., 174;Jackson v. State, 7 Tex. Ct. App., 363.

Sayles & Bassett, for appellees, on jurisdiction, cited: I. & G. N. R'y Co. v. Nicholson, 61 Tex., 550; Const., art. V, sec. 8; Erwin v. Blanks, 60 Tex., 583, 585; Haby v. Koenig, 4 Tex. Law Rev., 119.

STAYTON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

The petition in this case stated a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the district court, even if it be true, as contended by appellant, that, in order to give jurisdiction to that court, the matter or amount in controversy must exceed in value the sum of $500.

It therefore becomes unnecessary to consider the different provisions of the constitution regulating and determining the jurisdiction thereby conferred on the county and district courts, respectively.

Jurisdiction, in so far as matter or amount in value in controversy is concerned, must be determined by the petition, and that question is concluded by its averments in so far as they state facts in relation to the thing in controversy, unless it otherwise appears that a plaintiff in framing his petition has improperly sought to give jurisdiction where it does not properly belong.

The rule is thus stated: “It is the well settled general rule that where the question of jurisdiction depends on the amount in controversy, the damages claimed, in actions sounding in damages, and not the amount of the verdict, give the court jurisdiction. 1 Bibb, 342; Id., 402; 2 Wash., 463;6 Vt., 91;10 Watts, 299. And in actions ex contractu the amount claimed, and not the sum recovered, determines the question of jurisdiction (4 J. J. Marsh., 24;2 Ark., 158;4 Ired., 151), if it does not appear that the plaintiff, in stating his demand, improperly attempted to give jurisdiction of a case not properly cognizable in that court. 15 Vt., 322. And in a case admitting of reasonable doubt as to whether the amount in controversy is within the jurisdiction, and where the plaintiff might have had reasonable ground of expectation of recovering the amount claimed, it being a sufficient amount to give jurisdiction, the case will not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 17 Vt., 499. In doubtful cases of this character all intendments will be in favor of the jurisdiction. 12 Vt., 595;Graham v. Roder, 5 Tex., 146;Tarbox v. Kennon, 3 Tex., 7;Sherwood v. Douthit, 6 Tex., 224;Marshall v. Taylor, 7 Tex., 235;Ellett v. Powers, 8 Tex., 113;Bridge v. Ballew, 11 Tex., 270;Gouhenant v. Anderson, 20 Tex., 459.

The petition alleging a cause of action clearly within the jurisdiction of the court, it did not err in overruling the demurrers which presented this question.

If it was thought that the averments of the petition by which the amount in controversy was made to exceed in value $500 were made fraudulently, and only for the purpose of giving to the court jurisdiction of the case, then it was necessary that this should not only have been pleaded, but an issue thereon should have been tried under proper instructions.

If the pleadings in this respect were sufficient, and if there were facts to have authorized the submission of the issue, the court did not err in refusing to give the charge asked.

The charge asked did not present the true issue on the question of jurisdiction, and, besides, sought to submit to the jury a...