Court Opinion

ID: 9832872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:15:49.720564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:54.409531
License: Public Domain

Motion for Rehearing.
We were in error in stating in the original opinion that “appellant, through its Texas general sales office at Houston, acknowledged receipt” of the order for the second car of oil, “advising that the acceptance had been placed in the bank for collection at maturity.” This communication, although referring to to the “last car of oil shipped,” seems to have had reference in fact to the first and only car of' oil shipped to appellee. In all other respects the statement of the case was correctly made in the original' opinion, and the error pointed out does not affect the conclusions reached.
Appellant earnestly urges its contention that the amount in controversy set up in the appellee’s cross-action was beyond the jurisdiction of the county court. We did not discuss this contention in the original opin*326ion, deeming it without sufficient merit to justify specific discussion. We will dispose of it now by saying, simply, that the amount sought to be recovered by appellee in his cross-action was less than $1,000. The actual damages alleged to have been sustained by him was less than that amount, and under the facts alleged he could have recovered no more than the amount alleged, in any event.
1-Iis cause of action was for one-third of the net retail value of the car of oil at Ft. Stockton, which was less than $1,000 in all events. There was no splitting of causes o£ action. There was only one cause of action alleged or disclosed in the pleadings and evidence. That cause of action whs asserted in full by appellee, and the amount shown to be in controversy was within the jurisdiction of the county court.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled. Appellee has filed no motion for rehearing.