Roper v. Brady
| Decision Date | 24 April 1891 |
| Citation | 16 S.W. 434 |
| Parties | ROPER <I>et al.</I> v. BRADY <I>et ux.</I> |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Smith & Wear, for appellants D. Derden and S. C. Upshaw, for appellees.
This suit was brought by appellees to recover damages for the sale of a horse and two mules under an execution in favor of appellants and against one Gilliam. The petition charged that the animals were the separate property of Sarah J. Brady, the wife of the other appellee, and that the mules were worth $80 each, and the horse $60; that defendants had notice that plaintiff, at the time of the levy, had rented 30 acres of land to cultivate during the year, and that he would be prevented from doing so by said levy and sale; that he had contracted to rent 15 acres on a certain farm, 10 of which he intended to cultivate in cotton, but that he was, by said levy and sale, prevented from cultivating said 10 acres, to his damage $150; that he rented and cultivated during said year 15 acres at another place, but that, by reason of his delay in getting teams caused by said levy, his crops were damaged $100; that plaintiff was, for the purpose of forbidding said sale, compelled to travel 200 miles from his home in Hill county to the place of sale in Coleman county, Tex., and that the expenses of his trip, and the value of his time consumed, amounted to $53, of which he alleged the different items. The petition further charged "that said taking and conversion to their own use of said property by defendants was willfully, knowingly, oppressively, and wantonly done, and with intent to vex, injure, and harass plaintiffs, to their great damage, $600 vindictive damages." The defendants excepted specially to the allegations of actual damage, and to the allegations charging vindictive damage, on the grounds that the petition was contradictory, and showed that the property was not in the possession of the plaintiffs, and that the levy was lawfully made, and did not show that it was made "oppressively and wantonly, and without probable cause for believing that the property belonged to the defendant in execution." The defendants also objected to the jurisdiction of the court by an exception to the petition, in which the objection was stated as follows: "Plaintiff's allegations of his damages beyond the value of the property is only done to attempt to give this court jurisdiction of this cause, and they show no cause of action beyond the value of the property at the time of the alleged conversion, with legal interest, and the value so alleged, being two hundred and twenty dollars, is not within the jurisdiction of the court." The only other pleadings filed by the defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houston Oil Co. v. Davis
...fact in issue. The following authorities are conclusive upon this point: Tidball v. Eichoff, 66 Tex. 58, 17 S. W. 263; Roper v. Brady, 80 Tex. 591, 16 S. W. 434; Railway v. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 552; Dwyer v. Bassett, 63 Tex. 276; McDannell v. Cherry, 64 Tex. In addition to sustaining the plea......
-
First Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Vititow
...Tex.Civ.App., 227 S.W.2d 351, n. w. h.; Cox v. Cox, Tex.Civ.App., 304 S.W.2d 175, n. w. h.; Dwyer v. Bassett, 63 Tex. 274; Roper v. Brady, 80 Tex. 588, 16 S.W. 434; 21 C.J.S. Courts Sec. 56 p. Appellant's argument with reference to Points 2 and 3 is that no liability of the Company is shown......
-
C. R. Garner & Co. v. Riley
...Hoffman v. Cleburne, etc., 85 Tex. 409, 22 S. W. 154; Dwyer v. Bassett, 63 Tex. 274; Railway Co. v. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 552; Roper v. Brady, 80 Tex. 588, 16 S. W. 434. In this case paragraph 7a was not assailed as fraudulent. This gave the court jurisdiction. The appellee was only required t......
-
Sikes v. Keller
...for the fraudulent purpose of wrongfully conferring jurisdiction upon the justice court. Dwyer v. Bassett, 63 Tex. 274; Roper Bros. v. Brady, 80 Tex. 588, 16 S. W. 434; Baker v. Guinn, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 539, 23 S. W. There is no merit, therefore, in appellant's contention that the justice co......