Kinney-Shotts Inv. Co. v. Brooks Co.

Full title: KINNEY-SHOTTS INVESTMENT COMPANY v. D. V. BROOKS COMPANY

Court: Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: May 13, 1936

94 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. 1936)

94 S.W.2d 132

Opinion

No. 6503.

Decided May 13, 1936.

Jurisdiction — Sequestration.

It being the office of the petition, in a suit, to fix the jurisdiction of the court by naming the amount in controversy, such jurisdiction cannot be conferred by an affidavit for sequestration, giving an amount within the jurisdiction of the court, when the petition itself has failed to state any value of the article sued for.

Error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Second District, in an appeal from Tarrant County.

Suit by plaintiff in error against defendant in error to recover on certain promissory notes. Judgment in favor of plaintiffs was reversed and remanded by the Court of Civil Appeals ( 58 S.W.2d 1062), and plaintiff has brought error to the Supreme Court.

The case was referred to the Commission of Appeals, Section B, for their opinion thereon and the Supreme Court adopted same and ordered judgment entered in accordance therewith.

Judgment of Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.

Dawson H. Davis and Homer B. Green, both of Fort Worth, for plaintiff in error.

George E. Miller, of Fort Worth, for defendant in error.

MR. JUDGE SMEDLEY delivered the opinion of the Commission of Appeals, Section B.

Plaintiff in error filed three suits against defendant in error in the County Court at Law of Tarrant County, in each of which recovery was sought upon a promissory note or notes in an amount within the court's jurisdiction with foreclosure of chattel mortgage upon an automobile given to secure the debt. Each petition failed to alleged the value of the automobile. At the time each suit was filed the plaintiff filed an affidavit for sequestration in which the value of the automobile was stated in an amount within the court's jurisdiction. The three suits were consolidated for trial and the amended petition filed after the order of consolidation did not allege the value of the automobiles. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff and remanded the cause. 58 S.W.2d 1062. The question presented is the same as that this day decided in Mrs. C. B. Brown et al. v. C. C. Peters (ante, p. 300), a companion case. The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is affirmed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court May 13, 1936.