Shaw & Rogers v. Dockery

• Decision Date: 27 May 1925
• Docket Number: (Nos. 665-4176.)
• Citation: 272 S.W. 437
• Parties: SHAW & ROGERS v. DOCKERY.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

272 S.W. 437

SHAW & ROGERS v. DOCKERY.^*

(Nos. 665-4176.)

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

May 27, 1925.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Tenth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by T. B. Dockery against Shaw & Rogers. From a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (260 S. W. 909), reversing and remanding judgment for defendants on their cross-action in the county court, on appeal from justice of the peace, defendants bring error. Reversed, and judgment of the county court affirmed.

Allan V. McDonnell, of Waco, for plaintiff in error.

Johnston & Hughes, of Waco, for defendant in error.

BISHOP, J.

This case was filed by plaintiff, T. B. Dockery, in the justice court April 7, 1922, for $60 rent due by defendants, Shaw & Rogers, for a business house and to foreclose a lien on certain restaurant fixtures and equipment. Defendants by cross-action sought damages in the sum of $199, for detention of the property taken into his possession by the plaintiff, and on which he sought to foreclose a lien. On trial in the justice court, plaintiff recovered judgment for $45 and foreclosure of lien, and defendants recovered judgment against plaintiff on their cross-action for $199. The case was by plaintiff appealed to the county court, resulting in a like judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the county court, holding that court without jurisdiction of the cross-action for the reason that, at the time of the trial, the amount of damages shown by the pleadings exceeded the jurisdiction of that court.

The trial was had in the justice court May 13, 1922, and in the county court February 2, 1923. In both courts the pleadings were oral. The transcript from the justice court does not show what the pleadings there were, except the statement, "5—3—22, defendants plead cross-action for $199.00." In the county court the oral pleadings were taken by a stenographer and shown in the transcript. Defendants there alleged that their damages by reason of the wrongful seizure of their property was at the time of their oral pleadings in the county court in excess of $199, but that they were suing "for $199 as an offset, and for no more, because this suit originated in the justice court, and they are unable to sue for their actual damages for the wrongful detention of the property at this time." They also alleged by trial amendment that the reasonable rental value of the property was $5 per day, and that the property had been unlawfully withheld from them from March until the time of the trial in the county court.

It appears from the pleadings in the county court that, at the time the cross-action was lodged in the justice court on May 3, 1922, the amount of damages at $5 per day was within the jurisdiction of that court. The judgment there awarded on the cross-action for $199 was not in excess of its jurisdiction. The county court therefore had appellate jurisdiction at the time the appeal was perfected....