Mawthe v. Alexander Crozier & Co.
Mawthe v. Alexander Crozier & Co.
Opinion of the Court
Upon the face of this transcript, the District Court evidently had neither original nor appellate jurisdiction of this case. "We may unquestionably imagine a state of facts which would have warranted its transfer from the County Court to the District Court; but to justify the District Court in taking jurisdiction of it, and this court in affirming its judgment, these facts, if in truth they exist, should have been in some way incorporated into or shown by the record.
But this has not been done, and, “ as we have to act upon the record as we find it here,” we have no alternative but to “ reverse the judgment and remand the case, for want of jurisdiction of the District Court to hear and determine it,” as appears by the record presented to this court. (Lane v. Doak, 48 Tex., 227.)
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Jacob Mawthe v. Alexander Crozier & Co
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Jurisdiction of District Court.—Suit was originally brought in the District Court on a promissory note for less than §500. After tlie adoption of tlie Constitution, of 1876, the amount being below the jurisdiction of the County Court, the case was transferred by the District Court to the proper Justice’s Court. ■ After trial and judgment an appeal was taken by tlie defendant to the County Court; the case appeared in the District Court without any order transferring it from the County Court, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff: Held, That no jurisdiction was shown in the District Court. 2. Approved.—Lane v. Dealt, 48 Tex., 227, approved.