Case Name: Pecos & Northern Texas Railway Company v. J. C. Womble
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1909-11-27
Citations: 58 Tex. Civ. App. 33
Docket Number: 
Parties: Pecos & Northern Texas Railway Company v. J. C. Womble.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Civil Appeals Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 33–35

Head Matter:
Pecos & Northern Texas Railway Company v. J. C. Womble.
Decided November 27, 1909.
County Court — Jurisdiction—Amount in Controversy.
Where it appeared from plaintiff’s petition that the damages claimed to a shipment of cattle, plus the interest thereon at the legal rate, the interest being recoverable only as damages, exceeded the sum of one thousand dollars, an appeal from a judgment of a County Court will be dismissed for the want of jurisdiction in said court.
Appeal from the County Court of Deaf Smith County. Tried below before Hon. "W. H. Russell.
Madden, Trulove & Kimbrough, for appellant.
— The trial court erred in assuming and entertaining jurisdiction over this cause and rendering judgment herein, because at the time of the trial of said cause the matter in controversy, as shown by plaintiff’s original petition in said cause on December 24, 1907, on which petition said cause was tried, exceeded the sum of $1,000, exclusive of interest, there being no interest recoverable as such, but as a part of damages sought. Gulf, W. T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Fromme, 84 S. W., 1054; Schulz v. Tess-man, 92 Texas, 488; Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Everett, 95 S. W., 1085; Baker v. Smelser, 88 Texas, 26; Texas & P. Ry. v. Smissen, 73 S. W., 42; Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Faulkner, 118 S. W., 747.
No brief for appellee.

Opinion:
CONNER, Chief Justice.
— This suit was instituted in the County Court of Deaf Smith County by appellee on December 24, 1907, to recover alleged damages to one hundred and twenty head of cattle, shipped by him to Kansas City, Missouri. It was alleged that on the 16th day of October, 1906, the cars were ordered for the shipment, and that appellant promised to furnish them on the 10th of November following; that on the evening of the 9th of November, 1906, the plaintiff placed his cattle in the pens for shipment, but that the defendant company did not furnish the necessary cars until on the 28th day of that month; that said delay was unreasonable and resulted in damage to the plaintiff, which he thus states: "On account of expenses incurred in caring for and keeping said cattle, in the sum of one hundred dollars, which said expenses were pasturage and feed to the amount of eighty-five dollars, and fifteen dollars for time in looking after and herding said cattle, all of which plaintiff alleges to have been necessary on account of having to hold said cattle for shipment. Plaintiff further alleges that on account of said delay in furnishing cars, his cattle lost in weight and depreciated in value, all of which damages amounted to the aggregate sum of nine hundred and eighty-seven dollars and forty-three cents, and plaintiff prays for judgment in the said sum of nine hundred and eighty-seven dollars and forty-three cents, with interest thereon at the legal rate, and all costs of suit." The trial, which was on October 13, 1908, resulted in a verdict and judgment in appellee's favor for five hundred and fifty dollars, and appellant has duly prosecuted an appeal.
Without reference to the assignments of error presented, we find that the judgment must be reversed and the cause dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the County Court. From appellee's petition it is manifest that the damages to the cattle claimed, nine hundred and eighty-seven dollars and forty-three cents plus the interest thereon at the legal rate, which was recoverable in the way of damages only, exceeds the sum of one thousand dollars, the limit of the County Court's jurisdiction. The case in all material respects is controlled by the cases of Gulf, W. T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Fromme, 98 Texas, 459; Schulz v. Tessman & Bro., 92 Texas, 488; Baker v. Smelser, 88 Texas, 26; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Smissen, 31 Texas Civ. App., 549; Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Faulkner, 118 S. W., 747, and the case of Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Everett, 95 S. W., 1085. The case last named is directly in point, and we do not feel that we can add to whait has been so clearly stated in the cases cited.
For tlie reason stated, it is ordered that the judgment he reversed and the cause dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.