Court Opinion

ID: 9833988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:12:22.356561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:10.247135
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[2] The statement of the case made in the briefs failed to mention that the defendant C. E. Ford sued on a counterclaim against the plaintiff, Johnston, for $113. As a consequence we were misled as to the record. There was error in dismissing this appeal for want of jurisdiction, and the former judgment is here set aside. The counterclaim sought here to have judgment for confers jurisdiction over the case.
[3] The county judge, on motion of appellee, dismissed the appeal from the justice court, on the ground that the affidavit in lieu of appeal bond was not sufficient in form to give jurisdiction. The affidavit states the style and number of the suit, the date the judgment was rendered, and the court it was rendered in, and contains the requirements of the statute. The court erred in dismissing the appeal. Hodde v. Susan, 63 Tex. 307; Womack v. Gardner, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 30 S. W. 589; Farrar v. Dowd, 28 S. W. 919; Landa v. Heermann, 85 Tex. 1, 19 S. W. 885.
[4] Appellee had no legal concern with the controversy between appellant and Parrish, and appellant had the right, if he desired, to allow the Parrish judgment against .him to remain final and unappealed from, and was not legally required to appeal from it. Therefore, even if there had been a failure of appellant to appeal from the Parrish judgment, such failure would not have the effect to make the pauper’s oath insufficient for jurisdictional purposes. But we think the appeal from the justice court was perfected as to all parties.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for trial.