Sablatura v. Ellis
| Citation | 753 S.W.2d 521 |
| Decision Date | 07 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-87-00390-CV,01-87-00390-CV |
| Parties | Edward F. SABLATURA, Jr., and Richard W. Patterson, Appellants, v. Pat M. ELLIS, Appellee. (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Wallace Shaw, Freeport, for appellants.
William A. Orr, Orr & Wilder, Bay City, for appellee.
Before SAM BASS, LEVY and DUGGAN, JJ.
This is an appeal from a judgment non obstante veredicto entered by the county court at law following a jury verdict upon the trial de novo of a small claims controversy.
Appellants, Edward F. Sablatura, Jr., and Richard W. Patterson, filed a statement of claim in small claims court against appellee, Pat M. Ellis, alleging that he had wrongfully arrested them, causing damages in the amount of $920.94. At trial, a jury found in favor of appellee, and the justice of the peace, sitting as judge of the small claims court, entered a take-nothing judgment in his favor.
Appellants then appealed the judgment to the County Court At Law No. Two and Probate Court of Brazoria County, Texas, under the authority of Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 28.052 (Vernon Supp.1988), which allows appeal of small claims judgments where the amount in controversy, exclusive of costs, exceeds $20. At the trial de novo, Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 28.053(b) (Vernon Supp.1988), the jury answered special issues finding that appellee proximately caused an invasion of the privacy of appellants, and awarding damages of $550 to Patterson and $350 to Sablatura. The trial court then granted appellee's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entered a take-nothing judgment against appellants. From that judgment, appellants make this appeal.
In his first cross-point, appellee claims that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction to review this case. He contends that the only appeal that a party may prosecute in a case originating in the small claims court is a trial de novo in the county court or county court at law. He bases his contention on Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 28.053(d) (Vernon Supp.1988), which provides that "[j]udgment of the county court or county court at law on the appeal is final." We disagree.
Such an interpretation is inconsistent with the grant of appellate jurisdiction to the courts of appeals in Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 22.220 (Vernon Supp.1988), as to all civil cases of which district or county courts have jurisdiction "when the amount in controversy or the judgment rendered exceeds $100, exclusive of interest and costs," and in Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 51.012 (Vernon 1986), to hear appeals or writs of error from final judgments in the county court in civil cases "in which the judgment or amount in controversy exceeds $100, exclusive of interest and costs, ..." To hold that Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 28.053(d) bars the appeal would mean that, following trial de novo, the appealability to the courts of appeals of judgments or amounts in controversy of equal value (and in excess of $100, exclusive of interest and costs) would turn on whether the plaintiff initially filed his action as a small claim proceeding or as a regular justice court suit. A plaintiff who initiates such an action may be willing to forego the right to appeal beyond trial de novo from a judgment on an amount in controversy between $100 and $1,000 (or between $100 and $2,500 in a county with a population of 400,000 or more, Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 28.003[b] ). However, a defendant in that same action should not be deprived of the right of appeal to the court of appeals simply because the plaintiff chose to designate his complaint as a small claim, to be heard under Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 28.002 by the justice of the peace sitting as "judge of the small claims court," rather than before the same judicial officer sitting as "justice of the peace."
The finality of a judgment is a prerequisite for an appeal to the court of appeals. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.012. The quoted language of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sultan v. Mathew
...court of appeals. See, e.g., Galil Moving & Storage, Inc. v. McGregor, 928 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.); Sablatura v. Ellis, 753 S.W.2d 521, 522-23 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no pet.); see also Alan Wright et al., Appellate Practice and Procedure, 54 SMU L.Rev. 1......
-
The Woodlands Plumbing Co. v. Rodgers
...overruled. See Davis v. Covert, 983 S.W.2d 301, 303-04 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (overruling Sablatura v. Ellis, 753 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no writ)). ...
-
Howell Aviation Services v. Aerial Ads
...See Davis v. Covert, 983 S.W.2d 301, 303-04 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (en banc) (overruling Sablatura v. Ellis, 753 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no writ)). Howell's other case authority is similarly Significantly, four other courts of appeal......
-
Davis v. Covert
...a judgment of the county court on an appeal from the small claims court, we are disagreeing with the opinion of this Court in Sablatura v. Ellis, 753 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no writ), as well as with the San Antonio Court in Galil Moving & Storage, Inc. v. McGregor, ......