Case Name: STRIPLING v. MOONEY
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-12-27
Citations: 208 S.W. 229
Docket Number: No. 387
Parties: STRIPLING v. MOONEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 208
Pages: 229–230

Head Matter:
STRIPLING v. MOONEY.
(No. 387.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.
Dec. 27, 1918.
On Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 8, 1919.)
1. Justices of the Peace 141(2) — Appeal —JURISDICTION OE COUNTY COURT.
If the justice court did not have jurisdiction of action because the value of the property exceeded $200, the county court had no jurisdiction on appeal.
2. Justices of the Peace <©=>44(6) — Jurisdiction — Amount—Pleadings—Replevin.
The amount in controversy in replevin will be assumed to be that fixed in the complaint in determining the jurisdiction until the contrary is shown.
3. Justices of the Peace <S^44(6) — Jurisdiction — Raise Statement of Value — Purpose-Finding.
It is not sufficient that the value of property in controversy is more than stated in the complaint and beyond the justice’s jurisdiction, unless plaintiff falsely stated the value for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction.
4. Justices op the Peace <3=^141(6) — Jurisdiction — Amount—Findings.
Though the jury on appeal found the value of personalty in controversy to be $300, it must be held that plaintiff’s allegation of value to he $195 was made in good faith, where there was no request for finding on plaintiff’s good faith.
On Motion for Rehearing.
5. Justices op the Peace <§=»173(3) — Jurisdiction — Appeal—Evidence.
In replevin action brought in the justice court, upon appeal to the county court, it was error to exclude evidence that plaintiff’s attorney stated that he knew the automobile’s value was beyond the justice court’s jurisdiction, but lowered it in the complaint because he could get quicker trial In the justice court.
Appeal from Nacogdoches County Court; J. F. Perritte, Judge.
Suit by E. E. Mooney against J. B. Stripling in the justice court. Upon appeal to the county court, a judgment was rendered for plaintiff and against defendant and the sureties on his replevin bond, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
C. A. Hodges, of Nacogdoches, for appellant.
Ingraham & Watson and S. M. Adams, all of Nacogdoches, for appellee.

Opinion:
BROOKE, J.
This is a suit brought in the justice's court by appellee against appellant for an automobile or its value, alleged to be $195. In the county court, on appeal, there was a jury trial, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff for the car sued for, and against the defendant and the sureties on his replevy bond for the sum of $195. The defendant, in the justice's court, in due time filed a proper plea to the jurisdiction of that court on the ground that the value of the car exceeded $200, and that its value had been fraudulently alleged to have been $195 by plaintiff for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon that court. This plea was urged in th(e county court, and the jury was asked the question as to what was the value of the car in question, to which they answered, "$300." Upon this plea and the answer of the jury to this question, appellant urges the proposition that the court was without jurisdiction in this case, and should have dismissed the case.
If the justice's court did not have jurisdiction because the value of the property exceeded $200, the county court did not acquire jurisdiction by the appeal to it, and if the value of the property exceeded $200, the justice's court was without jurisdiction. In determining this question, however, it will be assumed that the value of the property is the amount fixed in plaintiff's pleading until it is shown that this value is in excess of $200, and that the value had been falsely alleged to be less for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the trial court. It is not sufficient that the trial court or jury should find that the value was greater than stated in plaintiff's pleading. The further finding must be had that it was falsely so stated for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon the court. Turner & Bro. v. Gable, 195 S. W. 348.
There was no request by appellant for a finding by the jury upon the good faith of appellee in alleging the value of the automobile to be $195, and therefore it must be held that such allegation of value was made in good faith, notwithstanding the finding of the jury from the testimony before them, that the value was $309.
We have examined carefully all questions raised in appellant's brief, and believe that the record presented to this court fails to show error in the trial of the cause below. Therefore we affirm the judgment in this case.
®=sFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
©=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes