Case ID: sw_234/html/0151-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FLY, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LOSANO v. TORRES et al.
    (No. 6601.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
    Oct. 19, 1921.)
    I.Appeal and error <&wkey;745 — Assignment of error copied into brief, but not contained in record, not considered.
    Assignment of error copied into brief, but not contained in record, cannot be considered.
    2. Courts <&wkey;!2l (3) — Petition to recover $400 and to set aside sale of business homestead held to give district court jurisdiction.
    Petition seeking to recover $400 and to set aside a sale of the business homestead ielA sufficient to give district court jurisdiction, the amount in controversy being at least $500.
    3. Courts <©=>121 (2) — Amount in controversy dependent on amount in good faith sought to be recovered.
    Jurisdiction as respects amount in controversy depends on what is in good faith sought to be recovered, and not the amount recovered.
    Appeal from District Court, Frio County; Covey C. Thomas, Judge.
    Action by Antonia Torres and Porfirio Torres against Felipe Losano and another. Judgment for plaintiffs against named defendant, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    S. T. Dowe, of Pearsall, for appellant.
    Thos. H. Ward, of Pearsall, for appellees.
   FLY, C. J.

This is a suit originally instituted by Antonia R. Torres against Porfirio Torres, Aurelio Andrada, and Felipe Losano, in which a divorce was sought by the plaintiff from her husband, Porfirio Torres, and against him and the other defendants to set aside sales of property made by the husband to the other two defendants. This was in January, 1920, but afterwards, through the mellowing and softening influence of time, and perchance the revival of the affection of more youthful days, and the compassion of a wife for a blind husband, another petition was filed in which Antonia was joined by Porfirio, and the dissolution of the marriage bonds was no longer sought, but in terms abandoned, and the prayer was that the sale of the homestead to Felipe Losano and Aurelio Andrada be declared null and void, and that the plaintiffs have judgment for $300 against Felipe Losano for a house moved by him oftj the land, which was afterwards amended so as to seek a judgment for $400. A jury was waived, and judgment rendered dismissing Aurelio Andrada from the suit as requested by appellees, and against Felipe Losano for the sum of $150 and all costs of court.

Only two assignments of error are copied into the brief, and neither of them has any likeness unto those found in the record. Of course they cannot be considered. However, a question of jurisdiction is sought to be raised because the action was for $400 over which the district court had no jurisdiction, but, while the suit for a moneyed sum was less than $500, it was also sought to set aside a sale of a business homestead owned by appellees. This was sufficient to give jurisdiction. It is what you in good faith seek to recover, and not the amount you recover, that fixes jurisdiction. Un-doubt'edly Jurisdiction bad attached under tbe original petition and under tbe amended petition, and there was no attempt to show that jurisdictional facts were fraudulently alleged.

Tbe judgment is affirmed, 
      ©=For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER. in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes