Court Opinion

ID: 9833433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:42:23.587171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:02.586957
License: Public Domain

*1081On Motion for Rehearing.
It is true, as contended by appellee, that the landlord’s lien' is given by the statute, independently of distress warrant proceedings. But it is further true that the justice court had no jurisdiction to foreclose such lien in this case in any event, since the amount sued for was $945. And since that ■court had no such jurisdiction, the county court could acquire none under the proceedings had if the suit be considered merely as one to foreclose the lien. The only reason the county court could acquire jurisdiction to foreclose the lien in such a proceeding as this was by compliance with the statutes referred to in the opinion on original hearing. If the suit had been originally instituted in the cpunty court, and had been to foreclose the lien, without resort to a distress warrant, a different question would have been presented.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.