
    Marshall v. Taylor.
    Where suit wag brought in the District Court to foreclose a mortgage upon personal property alleged to be of the value of one hundred and fifty dollars, given to secure tlie payment of seventy-five dollars: Held, That the court had jurisdiction. (Note 35.)
    Note 35. — Lane v. Howard, 22 T., 7; Hargrave v. Simpson, 25 T., 396.
    Error from Leon. This was a suit in the District Court, to foreclose a mortgage upon personal property, alleged to be of the value of one hundred and lifiy dollars, given to secure the payment of seventy-live dollars.
    It was objected, that the District Court liad not jurisdiction of the case. The court overruled the objection ; there was judgment for the plaintiff.
    Marshall, for self.
    That the action on said mortgage could not be legally instituted for more than tlie sum of seventy-five dollars, see mortgage on which action was brought. That the action was brought de facto for the sum of seventy-five dollars, see Taylor’s petition. That the judge erred in overruling the plea to tlie jurisdiction, see art. 4., sec. 10, Constitution.
    Barziza, for appellee.
   Wheeler, J.

We are of opinion that the court did not err in overruling tlie exceptions to its jurisdiction. The matter in controversy was not only the debt, but the security given for its payment. The litigation comprehended, as well the subject-matter of the mortgage, as the debt; and that was alleged to be of value sufficient to give jurisdiction to tlie District Court. (Tarbox v. Kennan, 3 Tex. R., 7.)

We are of opinion that the judgment be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  