
    MONNIG DRY GOODS CO. v. KING et al.
    (No. 2911.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
    May 15, 1924.)
    Justices of the peace <&wkey;!4l (2)— Judgment for debt in sum within jurisdictional limit affirmed though jurisdiction of suit as one for foreclosure did not appear.
    Judgment against one party, sued merely for money debt, fof debt in sum of which justice court had jurisdiction, will be affirmed, though jurisdiction of suit so far as it was one to foreclose mortgage securing debt, did not appear, in that pleadings did not show that value of property mortgaged was not in excess of $200.
    Appeal from Wood County Court. On motion for rehearing.
    Motion overruled.
    For original opinion see 261 S. W. 515.
   WILLSON, C. J.

It is insisted *n support of the motion that it did not appear that the justice court had jurisdiction of Saxon’s suit, and therefore that the county court never acquired power 'to hear and determine it. The contention is,on the theory that the suit was also to foreclose a mortgage made to secure the $125 sued for, and that the value of the property mortgaged was not shown in the pleadings not to be in excess of $200. But the suit was mot against Gibson so far as it was to foreclose the mortgage. The recovery sought and had against him was only for the amount of the debt sued for, which was within the jurisdiction of the justice court. The case is ruled by Mercantile Co. v. Raney Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 154 S. W. 317, where, on similar facts, a judgment against one sued for damages for conversion in a sum the court «had jurisdiction of was affirmed notwithstanding it did not appear that the court had jurisdiction of the suit so far as it was to foreclose a mortgage as against other parties to the suit.

The motion is overruled. 
      <@E»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     