Court Opinion

ID: 9831493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:08:40.448773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:35.341839
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the original opinion it was held that failure to allege the value of the property upon which foreclosure was sought, showing same to be of an amount within the jurisdiction of the county court, did not subject the petition to general demurrer; This holding was based upon the opinion rendered by the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals in Mangum v. Buffalo-Pitts Co., 131 S. W. 1196. This was the only authority presented to the court upon the question, but upon rehearing appellant has called our attention to Stricklin v. Arrington, 141 S. W. 189, and Wilson v. Ford, 159 S. W. 73, decided by the Ft. Worth Court of Civil Appeals, in which it was held that it must affirmatively appear from the record that the county court had jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit. We also find the recent ease of Bates v. Hill, 144 S. W. 288, decided by the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals, where it was held that the jurisdiction of the county court over the subject-matter must be shown by the petition. This latter case does not refer to the former case of Mangum v. Buffalo-Pitts Co., but the two are in direct conflict, and the former must be considered as overruled by the latter. We regard the two cases by the Ft. Worth Court of Civil Appeals and the latter case by the Galveston court as stating the proper rule, and, since the petition in the instant case did not allege the value of the property upon which foreclosure of the mortgage lien was sought, there was therefore a failure to affirmatively show the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter of the suit, which necessitates a reversal.
The motion for rehearing is granted, and the cause reversed and remanded.