St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Post
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
WILUSON, O. J.
(after stating the facts as above!. The theory on which appellant contends that the court below was without jurisdiction of the suit was that it appeared from the allegations in appellee’s petition that hé was not entitled to recover either the sum he sued for as interest on the value of the mule or the sum he sued for as attorney’s fees, and that the suit therefore should be treated as one for $200 only, of which a justice court alone had jurisdiction. We agree it appeared from said allegations that appellee was not entitled to recover anything as interest, either eo nomine or…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Schulz v. Frank Tessman & Bro.Texas Supreme Court · 1899
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. MahaffeyTexas Supreme Court · 1912
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. ChamblissTexas Supreme Court · 1899
- Houston & Texas C. R. R. Co. v. MuldrowTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. KnowlesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Johnson v. Universal Life & Accident InsuranceTexas Supreme Court · 1936
- Eastland County v. ChapmanTexas Commission of Appeals · 1926
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
- Davis v. ForeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
- Texas N. O. R. Co. v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932