J. F. TURNER & BRO. v. GABLE.
(No. 1803.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
May 9, 1917.
Rehearing Denied May 24, 1917.)
1. Justices ojp tiie Peace <S=^141(2) — Appeal — Jurisdiction of County Court.
If the justice court did not have jurisdiction of the mortgage foreclosure, because the value of the mules exceeded $200', the county court did not, by appeal to it, acquire jurisdiction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Justices of the Peace, Cent. Dig. § 472.]
2. Justices oe the Peace <§=^43(1) — Jurisdiction — Amount.
In view of Const, art. 5, § 19, the justice court would have no jurisdiction of the foreclosure of a mortgage on two mules, if their value exceeded $200.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Justices of the Peace, Cent. Dig. §§ 75, 149, 150, 152, 156.]
3. Justices of the Peace <S^44(2) — Jurisdiction — Amount, How 'Determined — Pleadings.
Whore plaintiffs in good faith, in 'a suit to foreclose a mortgage on two mules, alleged that they were of the value of $180, the allegation should be treated as conclusively establishing that to be their value, so far as the question of jurisdiction was concerned.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Justices of the Peace, Cent. Dig. §§ 158, 162, 164, 167.]
4. Justices of the Peace <§»1&8(1) — -Appeal —Abandonment of Claim.
Where plaintiffs abandoned their claim of a right to have the mortgage foreclosed after the cause by appeal was transferred from the justice to the county court, they were not entitled to a foreclosure in the county court.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Justices of the Peace, Cent. Dig. §§ 721, 722.]
Appeal from Wood County Court; R. E. Bozeman, Judge.
Suit in justice court by J. F. Turner & Bro. against W. H. Gable. Plaintiffs had judgment in the justice court, and defendant appealed to the county court, where there was a judgment dismissing the suit. From the latter judgment, plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed and rendered, with costs.
Appellants, by their suit commenced in a justice court, sought a recovery against ap-pellee on a promissory note, dated February 2, 1914, for $129.75, interest from its date at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum, and 10 per cent, additional as attorney’s fees, and also sought a 'foreclosure of a mortgage on two mules, which they alleged to be of the value of $180, given to secure the payment of the note. In the justice court ap-pellee filed a sworn plea, in which he alleged the value of the mules to be more than $200, and charged that appellants had falsely and fraudulently alleged the value thereof to be only $180 for the purpose of giving the justice court jurisdiction of the suit. A trial in that court resulted in a judgment for appellants for $158.75, and for foreclosing the lien of the mortgage on the mules. Appellants prosecuted an appeal to the county court, where judgment dismissing the suit was rendered, on the ground that the justice court was without power to hear and determine it, because the mules against which appellants sought a foreclosure of the mortgage were of the value of over $200. In connection with the finding that the value of the mules exceeded $200, the county court further found that appellants,' in alleging their value to be only $180', “acted honestly and fairly,” and not “for the fraudulent purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the justice court.” It appears from the findings that the county court concluded that it appeared “from the preponderance of the evidence” that the mules were worth more than $200, because, quoting his language, “ten credible witnesses,'acquainted with the mules in question, testified that their value was from $250 to $300,” while only “four credible witnesses, acquainted with the mules, testified that their value was from $150 to $190.”
M. D. Oarlock, of Winnsboro, for appellants. W. D. Suiter, of Winnsboro, Jones & Jones, of Mineóla, and B. F. Cathey, of Quit-man, for appellee.
WILLSON, C. J.
(after stating the facts as above). [1,2] If the value of the mules exceeded $200, the justice court did not have jurisdiction of the suit (article 5, § 19, of the Constitution); and, if it did not, the county court did not, by the appeal to it, acquire jurisdiction thereof. Cotulla v. Goggan, 77 Tex. 32, 13 S. W. 742; Schwartz v. Fries, 31 S. W. 214; Smith v. Carroll, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 330, 66 S. W. 863. But, in determining the questions as to jurisdiction, both the justice court and the county court were bound to assume the value of the mules to be as alleged in appellant’s pleadings, in the absence of pleading and proof by appellee that they were of greater value than $200, and that appellants had falsely alleged their value to be only $1S0 for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction it did not in fact have of the suit upon the justice court. Dwyer v. Bassett, 63 Tex. 274; Houston Ice & Brewing Co. v. North Galveston Imp. Co., 29 Tex. Civ. App. 40, 67 S. W. 1079; Graham v. Roder, 5 Tex. 141; Baker v. Guinn, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 539, 23 S. W. 604.
[3] Having found that appellants acted in good faith in alleging the value of the mules to be $180, the epunty court should have treated the allegation as conclusively establishing that to be their value, so far as the question as to jurisdiction was concerned, notwithstanding he may have believed from testimony before him. that their value was in excess of $200. As that court erred in dismissing the cause, and in refusing instead to render judgment for appellants for the amount due on the note, to wit, the sum of $173.75, its judgment will be reversed, and *349judgment will be here rendered that appellants have and recover of appellee said sum of $173.75, together with interest thereon from April 1, 1916, at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum, and the costs of this court and the courts below.
[4] Appellants were not entitled in the county court to a foreclosure of the mortgage lien, because they abandoned their claim of a right thereto after the cause, by the appeal, was transferred to that court.