Case Name: RANDALS v. PECOS VALLEY STATE BANK et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-12-11
Citations: 162 S.W. 1190
Docket Number: 
Parties: RANDALS v. PECOS VALLEY STATE BANK et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 162
Pages: 1190–1190

Head Matter:
RANDALS v. PECOS VALLEY STATE BANK et al.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
Dec. 11, 1913.
On Rehearing, Jan. 15, 1914.)
1. Appeal and Ebror (§ 742 ) — Assignments op Error — Propositions.
Assignments of error unsupported by propositions as required by rule 30 (142 S. w. xiii), governing the briefing of cases, will not be considered.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dec. Dig. § 742. ]
On Rehearing.
2. Courts (§ 170 ) — County Courts — Amount in Controversy — Jurisdiction.
A judgment of the county court foreclosing a chattel mortgage will be reversed where the petition fails to allege the value of the property upon which foreclosure is sought, so as to show it to be of an amount within the jurisdiction of the county court.
[Ed. Noté. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 427; Dec. Dig. § 170. ]
Appeal from Reeves County Court; H. N. McKellar,. Judge.
Action by the Pecos Valley State Bank and others against Ben Randals. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Ben Randals and Ben Palmer, both of Pecos, for appellant. Buck & Starley, of Pecos, for appellees.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HIGGINS, J.
The Pecos Valley State Bank brought this suit, seeking recovery upon a certain promissory note executed by Melville A. Davis and R. T. Davis in the sum of $582.25, together with foreclosure of chattel mortgage liens upon certain personal property, the value of which was not stated in the petition.
Error is assigned to the failure of the court to sustain a general demurrer to the petition upon the ground that it was insufficient in failing to allege the. value of the property upon which foreclosure was sought, showing such value to be of an amount within the jurisdiction of the county court. It is the better practice to allege such value, but failure to do so does not subject the petition to general demurrer. Mangum v. Buffalo-Pitts Co., 131 S. W. 1196.
The remaining assignments of error are not entitled to consideration, because unsupported by propositions, as required by rule 30 (142 S. W. xiii), governing the briefing of cases. However, the record contains no statement of facts, and, in the absence of same, all possible questions which might be presented by the assignments would of necessity be overruled.
Affirmed.