Smith Drug Co. v. Rochelle

3 Citing cases

  1. Long v. Martin

    287 S.W. 494 (Tex. 1926)   Cited 8 times

    Cotton v. Rhea, 106 Tex. 220, 163 S.W. 2; authorities, supra. (c) Arts, 4656 (4653) and 1995 (1830), Subd. 17, do not relate to jurisdiction, but to venue only. Martin v. Kieschnick, 231 S.W. 330; Smith Drug Co. v. Rochelle, 135 S.W. 259; Royal Amusement Co. v. Columbia Piano Co., 170 S.W. 278; Railway Company v. Anderson, 150 S.W. 248; Kieschnick v. Martin, 208 S.W. 953. (d) It is the allegations in the petition, and not the proof thereof, that determine the right of plaintiffs to institute, maintain and prosecute their suit to final judgment; the allegations and not the proof confer jurisdiction on the court.

  2. Mann v. Brown

    201 S.W. 438 (Tex. Civ. App. 1918)   Cited 6 times

    In a suit brought for the sole purpose of preventing the sale of specific property, the value of the property determines the amount in controversy in determining the jurisdiction of the court, and such value should be alleged. Smith Drug Co. v. Rochelle, 135 S.W. 258. Stating the proposition more broadly: In suits to foreclose a lien when the debt sued for is less than the minimum prescribed to give jurisdiction, and the value of the property upon which the lien is sought to be foreclosed is not alleged, the petition fails to show that the court has jurisdiction.

  3. A. J. Birdsong Son v. Allen

    165 S.W. 46 (Tex. Civ. App. 1914)   Cited 5 times

    We do not think, because the county court confined his right to recovery to the amount of his debt, that he should now be heard to say that was the amount in controversy in order to defeat the jurisdiction of the appellate court. Piano Co. v. Clay, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 638, 90 S.W. 683; Drug Co. v. Rochelle, 135 S.W. 258. We believe, under the statement of the amount sued for as noted upon the docket, and in the citation, that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; and the motion is therefore overruled.