Court Opinion

ID: 9829559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:25:53.214938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:02.942361
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[2] The point is raised in the motion for rehearing herein that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in this cause. We think the point is well taken.
The facts in the ease briefly are: Porter had obtained a judgment against J. F. Arnold, in the justice court, which at the time the garnishment herein was sued out amounted to more than $100. No appeal was taken from such judgment- Porter sued out a garnishment against the First National Bank of Waco, alleging that it had effect? of Arnold in its possession. The bank answered that it held as collateral several bonds, the aggregate value of which was less than $100, to secure a note executed by said Arnold to the bank. No contest was made as to the right of the bank to hold these securities as collateral to the Arnold note. The bank further answered that Arnold had on deposit with it the sum of $51.51. Arnold contested this answer, stating that the money belonged, not to him, but to King & King. King & King intervened, alleging ownership of this money. The ease was tried in the justice court, and judgment was rendered for Porter, from which King & King and Arnold appealed. The ease was tried in the county court, and submitted upon the following special issue:
“To whom did the $51.51 on deposit in the First National Bank, in the name of J. F. Arnold, belong,' on April 2, 1919, when the writ of garnishment was served?” To which the jury answered: “To J. F. Arnold.”
Nothing was in issue upon the trial of this cause except the ownership of the $51.51, on deposit in the bank. No appeal had been taken from the judgment in favor of Porter against Arnold. The jurisdiction of this court upon appeal is determined by the amount in controversy. The amount in controversy in the trial of this cause in the county court was $51.51- We have no appellate jurisdiction of cases tried in the county court, unless the amount in controversy is $100.
“Where a court is by a statute limited in its jurisdiction as to the amount in controversy. *648such statute will apply to garnishment proceedings.” 29 Oye. 1033.
The writ of garnishment was issued in this cause by the justice court, and returned to and tried in that court, as required by statute. The amount in controversy in the garnishment proceedings being in texcess of $20, the county court had appellate jurisdiction in the cause; but the amount in controversy in the county court being less than $100, we have no jurisdiction to try said cause on appeal. There is an apparent exception to jurisdiction, determinable by the amount in controversy, in that the jurisdiction of courts is fixed generally by the amount in controversy; but the statute requires that the writ of garnishment shall be returned to the court in which the principal judgment was rendered. In such case, the garnishee might answer that he had in his possession an amount exceeding the jurisdiction of the court; but, in such case the , court would not be concerned with the amount held by the garnishee in excess of the original judgment, and hence only the amount held by 'the garnishee up to the amount of the original judgment could be put in controversy. That the amount in controversy in a garnishment proceeding may be different from the amount recovered in the judgment in the principal case is clearly recognized in Kelly v. Gibbs, 84 Tex. 148, 19 S. W. 380, 563.
Having concluded that we have no appellate jurisdiction in this cause, the motion for rehearing is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
Motion granted.
Appeal dismissed.