
    GILBERT v. YORK.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
    Nov. 8, 1911.)
    Appeal and Ebkok (§ 57) — Appellate Jurisdiction — Amount in Controversy.
    Plaintiff sued defendant in a justice’s court for $54, whereupon defendant reconvened for $45 actual damages and $100 exemplary damages. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff for $24.70 and in favor of defendant on his plea in reconvention for actual damages in the sum of $15. On appeal to the county court judgment was rendered for plaintiff as before the justice, and defendant’s plea in reconvention was dismissed. Held that, defendant’s plea in reconvention not having been withdrawn, the amount claimed by him in reconvention was in issue and to be considered in determining whether the case involved an amount sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 267; Dec. Dig. § 57.]
    Appeal from Comanche County Court; J. M. Reiger, Judge.
    Action by J. I. Gilbert against O. L. York. From a justice’s judgment in favor of plaintiff, affirmed on appeal to the county court for less than the relief demanded, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. E. McCarty, for appellant. E. E. Solomon, for appellee.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r indexes
    
   JENKINS, J.

This suit originated in the justice’s court wherein appellant sued appellee for $54, and sued out a distress warrant and levied it on the property of appellee, and sought to foreclose his landlord’s lien. Ap-pellee reconvened for $45 actual damages and $100 exemplary damages. There was a judgment in the justice’s court in favor of the plaintiff for $24.70, and in favor of the defendant on his plea in reconvention for actual damages in the sum of $15. Upon trial of this case in the county court, the court trying the ease without a jury rendered judgment for the appellant for $24.70 and found against the appellee on his plea in reconvention. In both the justice’s court and the county court the writ of sequestration issued in this case was quashed, for the reason that no sufficient bond was given.

Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal for the reason that the amount in controversy is not within the jurisdiction of this court. We overrule this motion. Although the court found against appellee’s plea in reconvention, said plea was not withdrawn upon the trial of said cause, and therefore the amount claimed by him in reconvention was an issue upon the trial of said cause.

We sustain the action of the trial court in quashing the bond and writ in this case, for the reason that said bond is not in compliance with the statute. The court did not err in assessing the costs of said sequestration against the appellant.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment herein is affirmed.

Affirmed.  