Court Opinion

ID: 9828010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:01:02.761542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:41.525905
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee urges that our holding is in conflict with those in:
1. Olloqui v. Duran (Tex.Civ.App.) 60 S.W.(2d) 808, 809, that “In a suit to foreclose a chattel mortgage, it is not essential that the value of the property be shown to confer jurisdiction, but in order to oust the court of such jurisdiction, it is essential to affirmatively show that the amount in controversy exceeds its jurisdictional amount.”
2. Clonts v. Johnson, 116 Tex. 489, 294 S.W. 844, 846, to the effect that since pleadings may be oral as well as written in the justice court, and in appeals therefrom to the county court, it will be presumed, in the absence of affirmative record showing to the contrary, that the pleadings were sufficient to show the jurisdiction of the court.
The above-quoted holding in Olloqui v. Duran was expressly overruled by the Supreme Court in 92 S.W. (2d) 436, 437.
The holding in Clonts v. Johnson has no application here for two reasons: (1) The plaintiff filed a petition in the justice court, and another in the county court, setting forth the elements of his cause of action, as fully as if the case had been one in the county or district court. (2) The parties expressly agreed that “no pleading or proof was offered as to the value of any of the chattels” in suit.
“Under our statutes the pleadings in the justice court in civil cases are oral, but it is nevertheless true that such pleadings determine the amount in controversy precisely the same as do written pleadings, for whether the pleadings are written or oral they are essential to a recovery and they necessarily determine the extent of the possible recovery. There can be no recovery in the absence of pleadings.” Clonts Case, above.
It was further said in that case that, since the pleadings in such cases may be oral, they “are not ordinarily shown in the appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals, and can only appear by agreement, or testimony in the record, or be evidenced by a proper bill of exceptions.” (Italics supplied.)
Here, as stated, the pleadings were in writing, and the absence of allegation or proof of jurisdictional amount was shown by agreement.
To grant appellee’s motion would create a conflict with those decisions of the Supreme Court.
The motion is overruled.