Texas Power & Light Co. v. Hale

• Decision Date: 12 May 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 639-4501.)
• Citation: 283 S.W. 495
• Parties: TEXAS POWER & LIGHT CO. v. HALE.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

283 S.W. 495

TEXAS POWER & LIGHT CO. v. HALE.

(No. 639-4501.)

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

May 12, 1926.

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

Action by J. N. Hale against the Texas Power & Light Company. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (276 S. W. 746), and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

J. O. Lockett, Kilpatrick & Kilpatrick and J. I. Kilpatrick, Jr., all of Cleburne, for plaintiff in error.

Jackson & Jackson, of Cleburne, for defendant in error.

SHORT, J.

This suit originated in the justice court, precinct No. 1, Johnson county, Tex., wherein the defendant in error, Hale, sought to recover damages against the plaintiff in error for injuries done to his automobile in a wreck, and also for the value of the use of the automobile while in the possession of the plaintiff in error. The damages to the automobile were laid at $105, and the value of the use while detained was placed at $2 per day for 40 days, and an additional item of $25 was claimed as attorney's fees, and a credit of $50 was allowed for partial repairs, leaving a balance due him of $160. Judgment for $135 was rendered in his favor in the justice court on October 27, 1923. Thereafter the plaintiff in error prosecuted its appeal to the county court of Johnson county, and in that court the defendant in error filed an amended petition, laying his damages to the car at $105, loss of the use of his car for 2½ months at $2 per day, aggregating $150, and crediting the claim with $50, leaving a total demand of $205. Upon a trial before a jury upon special issues, judgment in favor of the defendant in error was rendered for $140.10, with interest and costs. From this judgment the plaintiff in error prosecuted its appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals of the Second Supreme Judicial District, and that court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Writ of error having been granted by the Supreme Court, the case has been referred to this section of the Commission of Appeals for disposition.

The principal question involved in this appeal has reference to the fact that the defendant in error, by his amended pleadings filed in the county court, claimed damages in excess of $200, and that court permitted this to be done and tried the case upon these amended pleadings. The contention is made by the plaintiff in error that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in its ruling that the defendant in error had a right to increase the amount of his demand in the county court beyond $200; the claim being made by the plaintiff in error that the county court had no jurisdiction of the controversy which had originated in the justice court, as the defendant in error had increased his demand to an amount beyond the jurisdiction of the justice court wherein the case originated, and we think this contention should be sustained. Section 19 of article 5 of the Constitution provides that the justice court shall have jurisdiction in civil matters of all cases where the amount in controversy is $200 or less, exclusive of interest; while section 16 of article 5 provides that the county court shall have appellate jurisdiction in cases civil and criminal of which justice courts have original jurisdiction, further providing that, in all appeals from a justice court to a county court, the trial shall be de novo in the county court. Article 2385 of the Revised Civil Statutes of 1925 states the jurisdiction of justice courts in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution; while article 1952 of the same statute states the appellate jurisdiction of the county court in the following language:

"The county court shall have appellate jurisdiction in civil cases over which the justice courts have original jurisdiction when the judgment appealed from or the amount in controversy shall exceed $20.00 exclusive of costs."

In the case of Shaw & Rogers v. Dockery, 272 S. W. 437, Section A of the Commission of Appeals, in a case involving not this identical question, but a kindred one, uses this language:

"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. The mere fact that damages accumulated pending the action in the county court did not oust that court of this appellate jurisdiction. The court could try and determine the issue presented by the cross-action, but could render judgment for no greater sum than the jurisdictional limit of the court in which the defendant saw fit to sue."

By reference to the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in that case, 260 S. W. 909, wherein the facts and circumstances are more definitely stated than in the opinion of the Commission of Appeals, we find that the latter court in that case held that the county court had jurisdiction of the amount in excess of $200 where, as in the case at bar, the cause of action asserted was of such a nature that damages accumulated pending the action, citing in support of its ruling Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co. v. Underwood, 100 Tex. 284, 99 S. W. 92, 123 Am. St. Rep. 806. In the case cited, Justice Williams for the Supreme Court, in answering a certified question propounded by the Court of Civil Appeals of the Second District, uses this language:

"The date of the institution of the suit is not given by the certificate, but it appears that it must have been before January 5, 1904, when the second amended petition was filed. Up to that time 6 per cent. added to the amount of damage alleged to the cattle would not exceed $1,000; hence it is evident that the amount claimed when the suit was brought was within the jurisdiction of the county court, and judgment for that amount could have been rendered, had the cause been then tried. Taking the amended pleading as speaking from that date, it claimed no more than it is to be presumed was claimed in the original petition."

We construe this language under the facts of that case to mean that the amended petition, which was the basis of the suit at the time it was tried, stated the demand to be within the jurisdiction of the county court, where the suit was originally filed, and that the mere fact that, by reason of the nature of the cause of action permitting damages to accumulate...