Case ID: sw_244/html/1064-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WARTHARR, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROBINSON et al. v. CASTLEBERRY.
    (No. 1367.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
    Nov. 9, 1922.)
    Appeal and error <&wkey;65 — Where amount In controversy was only $30.75, Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction.
    The Court of Appeals on appeal from county court in case originating in justice court has no jurisdiction of a suit for fees for inspecting cattle where the amount in controversy was only $30.75.
    Appeal from El Paso County Court at Raw; J. M. Deaver, Judge.
    Suit by R. D. Castleberry against H. R. Robinson and others. Prom a judgment for plaintiff in a justice court and a similar judgment in the county court, defendants appeal.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Del Harrington, of El Paso, for appellants.
    . Roomis & Kirkland, of El Paso, for appel-lee.
   WARTHARR, J.

R. R. Castleberry, appel-lee, inspector of hides and animals for El Paso county, brought this suit in the justice court against appellants, H. R. Robinson and R. A. Morris, and there recovered judgment for $30.75, said sum being the amount of fees claimed ánd due him for inspecting cattle “about to be removed by defendants into the republic of Mexico through the port of El Paso, in El Paso county, Tex., on or about the 30th day of March, 1921.”

The case was appealed to the El Paso county court at law, and there tried under written pleadings and on the agreed statement of facts, the above-stated amount being the admitted full amount in controversy, resulting in a judgment for said sum in favor of ap-pellee and against appellants and their sureties.

Prom the judgment of the county court at law the case was appealed to this court.

Prom the above-agreed statement it clearly appears- that the amount in controversy is not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit.

Por the reason stated the appeal to this court is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 
      —<T?nT- other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes