Smith v. Brown

2 Citing cases

  1. Coughran v. Nunez

    133 Tex. 303 (Tex. 1939)   Cited 22 times
    Determining the ownership of an easement necessary to resolve parties' dispute "necessarily involved the trial of title to real estate"

    The county court did have jurisdiction of the matters involved in this suit. Smith v. Brown, 32 S.W.2d 388; Little v. State, 75 Tex. 616, 12 S.W. 965; Putty v. Putty, 6 S.W.2d 136. MR. JUDGE GERMAN delivered the opinion of the Commission of Appeals, Section A.

  2. Coughran v. Nunez

    106 S.W.2d 1101 (Tex. Civ. App. 1937)   Cited 1 times

    The reasonable value of the water system, the value of the amount in controversy is stated in the petition to be $1,000. Smith v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S.W.2d 388, 389, is a case very similar to the instant case, a suit to enjoin trespass on real estate. Judge Hickman, for the Eastland Court of Civil Appeals, said: "We know of no authorities and have been cited to none which deny the county court the power to issue an injunction to prevent a trespass upon real estate. * * * Under the article of the Constitution [Art. 5, Sec. 16] above referred to, the jurisdiction of suits for the recovery of land is denied the county courts, but it has been many times held that the fact that the title to land may be incidentally involved in a suit, the main purpose of which is not to recover or try the title to land, does not oust the county court's jurisdiction."