Case Name: R. D. JONES vs. A. B. JONES
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1882-06
Citations: 1 Tex. L. R. 215
Docket Number: 
Parties: R. D. JONES vs. A. B. JONES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Law Reporter
Volume: 1
Pages: 215–218

Head Matter:
R. D. JONES vs. A. B. JONES.
COURT OF APPEALS,
AUSTIN TERM, 1882.
Appeal — Constitutionality of a Statute — Appellate Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals. — Article 1382, Kevised Civil Statutes, in so far as it increases the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over the'amount in controversy, is lepugnant to the plain language of section 16, article 5, Constitution 1876, and considered alone in the light of this provision, the same is void; hut in construing the Constitution as a whole, held that the provision of this section is controlled hy section 22, article 5, and when so construed that the said article is valid.
'Sipst of the amount in controversy as giving the right to appeal. The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in civil cases embraces not only causes in which the judgment rendered exceeds one hundred dollars, but also those ■ where the amount in controversy exceeds one hundred dollars. Unless it appears that the plaintiff, in stating his demand improperly, soughttogive jurisdiction where it did not rightfully belong, his demand, as set forth in his declaration or petition, is the measure of the amount in controversy, and not the verdict or the judgment of the court there,on.
Appeal from County Court of Hill county

Opinion:
Willson, J.
Opinion by R. D. Jones sued A. B. Jones before a justice of the peace in Hill county for the sum of $175, alleged to be due upon account- A. B. Jones pleaded that he did not owe that, or any other amount, to R. D. Jones, but that R. D. Jones was indebted to him in the sum of $15.56 on accounts. The cause was tried in justice's court, and judgment rendered for plaintiff for $170, and from this judgment the defendant appealed to the County Court of Hill county.
In the county court the case was tried de novo, and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for $32.09, and all costs incurred in justice's court, the said costs amounting to $30.25. The defendant moved for a new trial, which motion was overruled, and he gave notice of appeal, and has brought the case before this court by appeal.
The appellee now moves to dismiss the appeal, " because this case having been tried de novo on its merits in the county court on appeal from a justice's court, and a judgment having been rendered by said county court for an amount less than one hundred dollars, this court has no jurisdiction of the same." The question thus presented is an important one, involving the constitutionality, in part, of one of the provisions of the Revised Statutes.
The provision referred to is article 1382, which is as follows: "An ajipeal or writ of error may also be taken to the Court of Appeals from any final judgment of the county court rendered on appeal, or certiorari in civil oases, taken from the justice's court, where the judgment, or the amount in controversy, exceeds one hundred dollars."
In section 16, article b, of the Constitution is the following provision: "In all appeals from justices' courts there shall be a trial de novo in the county court, and when the judgment rendered or fine imposed by the county court shall not exceed one hundred dollars, such trial shall be final; but if the judgment rendered or fine imjDosed shall exceed one hundred dollars, as well as in all cases, civil and criminal, of which the county court has exclusive or concurrent original jurisdiction, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeals, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law." Now it is clear that the amount of the judgment in this case does not exceed one hundred dollars. It is equally clear that this is not -a case over which the county court has exclusive or concurrent original jurisdiction. (Const., art. 5, sec. 16.) Now, unless there is some provision in the Constitution conferring upon the Legislature the power to control this subject by legislation, we should be constrained to hold that the statute in question, in so far as it increased the jurisdiction of this court over the amount in controversy, is repugnant to the plain language of section 16, article 5, and therefore void.
But we find that section 22, article 5, of the same Constitution provides as follows: "The Legislature shall have power, by local or general law, to increase, diminish or change the civil and criminal jurisdiction of county courts; and in cases of any such change of jurisdiction the Legislature shall also conform the jurisdiction of the other courts to such change." In construing the Constitution we must look to it as a whole, considering all its provisions, in pari materia, together. (Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 70.) The provision last quoted places within the power of the Legislature the jurisdiction of the county courts, and the necessary concomitant powers to conform the jurisdiction of other courts to such changes as may be made in the jurisdiction of the county courts.
The county court, it seems, is the only court over the jurisdiction of which the Legislature is given this power and control. If, then, the statute under consideration increases, diminishes or changes the jurisdiction of the county court, it is not repugnant to the Constitution. By section 16, article 5, the jurisdiction of the county court, in cases like the one before us, is final where the judgment rendered does not exceed one hundred dollars. Tt is, in such cases, a court of last resort, and its jurisdiction an exclusive one. The statute, where the amount in controversy exceeds one hundred dollars, although the judgment rendered may be for a less amount, changes and diminishes the jurisdiction of the county court, and takes away from it its attribute of finality. It, at the same time, conforms the jurisdiction of this court to the change, conferring upon this court appellate jurisdiction in case wherein, before its enactment, the jurisdiction of the county court was exclusive and final. Entertaining this view of the question presented, we declare the statute referred to a constitutional law, and that the appellate jurisdiction of this court in this class of cases embraces not only cases in w'hich the judgment rendered in the county court exceeds one hundred dollars, but cases, also, where the amount in controversy exceeds one hundred dollars.
The question now presents itself, " what is the amount in controversy? " In Tarbox & Brown vs. Kennon, 3 Texas, 7, the Supreme Court says: "In questions of jurisdiction thus defined and limited by positive law, it has often been ruled that the plaintiff's demand, as s"et forth in his declaration or petition, is to be considered the amount in controversy, and that recourse must be had to the demand thus set forth to determine the jurisdiction. In such a case the verdict, it is held, is not the rule to determine the amount in controversy; but when the plaintiff declares for a sum within the jurisdiction conferred, and there is no plea to the jurisdiction, the court may adjudicate the subject matter and give judgment for a less s um than that which was required to give jurisdiction, unless it appears that the plaintiff, in stating his demand, improperly sought to give jurisdiction where it did not rightfully belong." (See, also, Austin & Clapp vs. Jordan, 5 Texas, 130; Graham vs. Roder, Id., 141.)
The plaintiff's demand in this case amounts to $1Í5, and this is the " amount in controversy " in this case, and is within the jurisdiction of this court. The motion to dismiss the appeal is refused.