Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Hughes
| Decision Date | 08 December 1906 |
| Citation | 98 S.W. 415 |
| Parties | MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. HUGHES. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Hunt County Court; F. M. Newton, Judge.
Action by Hutton Hughes against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
T. S. Miller and W. C. Jones, for appellant. Yates & Carpenter, for appellee.
This suit originated in the justice court, where a judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, Hughes. The railway company appealed to the county court, where Hughes amended his claim for damages, increasing it to a sum amounting to over $200. The railway company excepted to the amendment on the ground that the amount claimed exceeded the jurisdiction of the justice court, which exception was overruled. The case was tried and judgment was there rendered for less than $200, from which judgment the railway company appeals to this court.
The exception to plaintiff's amendment should have been sustained. In cases appealed from the justice court to the county court, the law prescribes that they shall be tried de novo, and it is not permissible to increase by amendment the amount in controversy beyond the sum of $200, and the error is not cured by the court's failure to include in his charge the items of damage that are embraced in the amendment that increase the original claim beyond the sum of $200. The case was tried on the amendment, which, of course, involved the sum beyond $200, and the county court had no right to determine on appeal such increased amount.
For the error indicated the judgment is reversed, and cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Addison v. Salyer
...Pipkin, 155 N. C. 394, 71 S.E. 442, 37 L.R.A., N.S, 606 and note; Davis v. Hagan, Tex.Civ.App, 255 S.W. 484; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Hughes, 44 Tex.Civ.App. 436, 98 S.W. 415; Bankers' Mortg. Co. v. Rogers, Tex, 61 S.W.2d 593; Brandon v. Progress Distilling Co., 167 Ala. 305, 52 So. 640......
-
Addison v. Salyer
...Co. Pipkin, 155 N.C. 394, 71 S.E. 442, 37 L.R.A.(N.S.) 606 and note; Davis Hagan (Tex. Civ. App.), 255 S.W. 484; Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. Hughes, 44 Tex.Civ.App. 436, 98 S.W. 415; Bankers' Mortgage Co. Rogers (Tex. Civ. App.), 61 S.W.(2d) 593; Brandon Progress Distilling Co., 167 Ala. 365, 5......
-
Dockery v. Shaw & Rogers
...G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Hamrick (Tex. Civ. App.) 231 S. W. 166; Burke v. Adoue, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 23 S. W. 91; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Hughes, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 436, 98 S. W. 415. Defendants contend that, where, as in this case, the damages sought to be recovered are of a continuing nature ......
-
Davis v. Hagan
...Tex. Civ. App. 356, 125 S. W. 618; Ft. W. & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Rayzor, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 544, 125 S. W. 619; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Hughes, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 436, 98 S. W. 415. The appellant by seven different assignments of error presents the following (1) That the court should have......