Case Name: FORD v. JOHNSTON
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-02-24
Citations: 164 S.W. 424
Docket Number: 
Parties: FORD v. JOHNSTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 164
Pages: 424–425

Head Matter:
FORD v. JOHNSTON.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
Feb. 24, 1914.
On Rehearing, March 5, 1914.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 48 ) — Appellate Jurisdiction — Value or Amount in Controversy.
Under Rev. St. 1911, art. 1589, limiting jurisdiction on appeal from the county court to cases wherein the judgment or amount in controversy exceeds $100, judgment on a note for $75, and for foreclosure of a mortgage securing it on cattle, alleged to be worth $100, is not ap-pealable.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§. 226-2S2; Dec. Dig. § 48. ]
On Rehearing.
2. Appeal and Error (§ 51 ) — Appellate Jurisdiction — Value or Amount in Controversy.
Under Rev. St. 1911, art. 1589, limiting jurisdiction on appeal from the county court to cases wherein the judgment or amount in controversy exceeds $100, a counterclaim for more than $100 in a suit for a less amount confers jurisdiction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 237, 267; Dec. Dig. § 51. ]
3. Appeal and Error (§ 389 ) — Appeal in Forma Pauperis — Affidavit in Lieu of Bond.
An affidavit in lieu of an appeal bond stating the style and number of suit, the date of the judgment, and the court wherein it was rendered is sufficient in form to give jurisdiction.
■ [Ed., Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2072-2076; Dec. Dig. § 389. ]
4. Appeal and Error (§ 389 ) — Appeal by Codefendant — Sufficiency of Pauper’s Oath.
A defendant sued on a note, and to foreclose a mortgage securing it, was not legally required to appeal from the judgment against him in favor of his codefendant for conversion of the mortgaged property, and his failure to do so would not make his pauper’s oath insufficient on appeal from the judgment against himself in plaintiff’s favor.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2072-2076; Dec. Dig. § 389. ]
Appeal, from Bowie County Court; Lee Tidwell, Judge.
Action by Edward Johnston against C. E. Ford and another in justice court. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Ford appealed to the county court. The appeal was dismissed; and he again appeals.
Reversed and remanded for trial.
J. W. Hillman, of Texarkana, for appellant. Graham & Smitha, of Texarkana, for appellee.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
LEW, J.
Appellee brought suit in the justice court against C. E. Ford and J. C. Parrish. According to the record the nature of the suit is described as being a suit by the plaintiff against C. E. Ford to recover on a promissory note executed by Ford for $75, with 10 per cent, interest, and to foreclose a chat tel mortgage on cattle, alleged to be of the value of $100, given by Ford to secure the payment of the note, and against Parrish for conversion of a part of the mortgaged property. Judgment was entered on the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff against Ford and Parrish, and with foreclosure of the mortgage, and in favor of Parrish against Ford for the value of the four head of mortgaged cattle bought by Parrish. C. E. Ford undertook to appeal to the county court from the judgment on an affidavit of inability to pay the cost of appeal, or give security therefor. The county court dismissed the appeal on motion of the appellee, and the case is in this court to revise the ruling of the county court.
As neither the debt nor the alleged value of the mortgaged property exceeds $100, this court has not jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Article 1589, R. S.; Green v. Warren, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 548, 45 S. W. 608; Mask v. Lumber Co., 145 S. W. 299. Reference: De Witt County v. Wischkemper, 95 Tex. 435, 67 S. W. 882.
For this reason the appeal is dismissed.