Escue v. Hartley

• Decision Date: 30 March 1918
• Docket Number: (No. 7852.)
• Citation: 202 S.W. 159
• Parties: ESCUE v. HARTLEY.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

202 S.W. 159

ESCUE v. HARTLEY.

(No. 7852.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

March 30, 1918.

Appeal from District Court, Hill County; Horton B. Porter, Judge.

Suit between R. L. Escue and J. T. Hartley. From judgment rendered, the former appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to dismiss.

Clarke & Clarke, of Hillsboro, for appellant. Shurtleff & Cummings, of Waco, for appellee.

TALBOT, J.

At a former day of the present term of this court we reversed and remanded this case for a new trial. The appellee has filed a motion for a rehearing and for the first time contends that the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, for the reason that the amount in controversy is exactly $500. This contention is supported by the record and must be sustained. The opinion heretofore handed down will be withdrawn, and this opinion filed instead thereof.

It is well settled by the decisions of this state that the district court has not jurisdiction of suits in which the amount in controversy is exactly $500, exclusive of interest, except in cases where property has been seized by execution, attachment, or sequestration and a claimant's oath and bond for the trial of the right of property have been filed and the property valued at exactly $500. The following are some of the cases construing the provisions of our Constitution relative to the jurisdiction of the district and county courts, and in which it has been held that where the amount involved is exactly $500 the district court has not jurisdiction: Railway Co. v. Rambolt, 67 Tex. 654, 4 S. W. 356; Garrison v. Pacific Express Co., 69 Tex. 345, 6 S. W. 842; Carroll v. Silk, 70 Tex. 23, 11 S. W. 116; Lazarus v. Swafford, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 39 S. W. 389. The exception stated is established by the following cases: Erwin v. Blanks, 60 Tex. 583; Carney v. Marsalis & Co., 77 Tex. 62, 13 S. W. 636; Betterton & Co. v. Echols, 85 Tex. 212, 20 S. W. 63. In the former of the cases cited, the conflict in the provisions of our Constitution fixing the jurisdiction of the district and county courts is pointed out, and the reason for the general rule stated is given; and in the latter the reason for the exception is stated. It would serve no useful purpose to restate those reasons here, and we shall not do so. We shall take occasion, however, to state that in St. Louis Type & Foundry Co. v. Taylor, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 732, 26 S. W. 226, it was held that the county court and not the district court has jurisdiction to try the right of property in cases where the property involved was levied on by virtue of a distress warrant and valued at exactly $500. That case may also be consulted for the reason therein given for the decision made, and it need not be repeated in this opinion. The ruling made in the case is stated simply to show the further construction placed upon the provisions of our Constitution relating to the jurisdiction of the district and county courts of this state.

Are we correct in the statement made above that the record supports appellee's contention that the amount in controversy in the present suit is exactly $500? We think so. As shown by the original opinion, the appellant sued appellee to recover $500 as liquidated damages for an alleged breach of a contract in writing whereby appellee agreed to convey to appellant upon the terms in said contract specified, a certain tract of land situated in Hill county, Tex.; that the contract recited that as an evidence of good faith for the faithful performance of the contract each party executed and delivered to Sidney Webster, subject to the final...