Legal Opinion

Moritz v. Byerly

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided January 10, 1945No. 9491Published

1Opinion

On Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing.

The motion quotes the following excerpt from Higgins v. Standard Lloyds, Tex.Civ.App., 149 S.W.2d 143, 146 (referred to in our original opinion): “It is the established rule in this state that a defendant cannot, by filing a cross-action, counterclaim, or plea in reconvention, litigate a suit entirely different and foreign to the main action for an amount over which the court has no jurisdiction. Hardeman [& Son] v. Morgan, 48 Tex. 103; Fridh et al. v. Giberson, Tex.Civ.App., 21 S.W.2d 563; Dawson v. Duffie, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W. 709.”

Taken in the abstract…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Middlebrook & Brother v. David Bradley Manufacturing Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Gimbel & Son v. J. Gomprecht & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Long v. City of Wichita FallsTexas Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Pearlstone Mill & Elevator Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1932
  5. McConnell v. FrostCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API