Court Opinion

ID: 9830015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:49:15.534056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:10.916067
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Defendants in error urge that the trial court’s money judgment in favor .of the defendants in error against- the plaintiffs in error and the sureties on their appeal bond from the'justice to the county court should be affirmed. In this we have concluded that they are correct.
While the county court lost jurisdiction of the plaintiffs’ demand for rents under their rental contract, it had jurisdiction of that portion ■ of the cause of action for forcible detainer. Art. 3990, R.S.1925, as amended in 1927, Acts 40th Leg., p. 74, Ch. 51, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 3990, expressly authorizes the county court, on appeal thereto from the justice court, in a forcible detainer action to render judgment," not only for possession of the premises, but for damages for withholding such possession between the date of the justice court judgment and the time of the trial in the county court. This item the county court had original jurisdiction to render, in conjunction with the trial of the -issue of possession of the premises, independent of the item of rents sued for. • R.S. 3990, Vernon’s Ann.Civ St. art. 3990; Holloway v. Paul O. Simms Co., Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d 672; Perry v. Luettich, Tex.Civ.App., 93 S.W.2d 790; 19 Tex.Jur., § 4, p. 761.
Our • former judgment herein is therefore modified so as to also affirm the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendants in error and against the plaintiffs in error and the sureties on their appeal bond from the justice to the county court in the sum of $220. In other respects our former judgment herein is not disturbed.
Granted in part.