
    CARTER v. BROWN.
    (No. 9585.)
    (Supreme Court of Texas.
    Jan. 5, 1916.)
    Courts <&wkey;247 — Intermediate Courts — Jurisdiction — Appeal.
    In an action in district court on a vendor’s lien note, plaintiff in error and defendant in error, his grantee, were impleaded, defendant in error seeking- a recovery over against plaintiff in error for deceit. On appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount due on the note, but denying the foreclosure of the vendor’s lien, was reversed and rendered as to foreclosure, and the cause remanded for trial on the issue between plaintiff in error and defendant in error. On remand defendant in error recovered a judgment for $359. Held that, as the amount involved was within the jurisdiction of the county court, and as it was wholly severable from the main controversy, the Court of Civil Appeals has final jurisdiction over an appeal involving- only that issue, and its determination cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 487, 749, 751-754, 757, 759, 760, 762-764; Dec. Dig. &wkey;247.]
    Error to Court; of Civil Appeals of Second Supreme Judicial District.
    Action by W. R. Thompson against L. G. Keys and others, in which W. T. Brown was impleaded. He in turn impleaded John T. Carter. On trial Thompson was given judgment, but denied foreclosure of his lien, and he appealed. The Court of Civil Aiipeals reversed and rendered judgment in favor of Thompson for the foreclosure of his lien, and remanded the case for trial of the issue between Brown and Carter. From a judgment for Brown, Carter appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals. The judgment being there affirmed, Carter petitions for writ of error. On motion to dismiss.
    Petition dismissed.
    McMurray & Gettys, of Decatur, for plaintiff in error.
   PHILLIPS, C. J.

The suit was originally instituted by W. R. Thompson to recover upon a vendor’s lien note, and to foreclose the lien upon a lot in the town of Alvord. The defendants were L. G. Keys, the maker of the note, thrée other parties, who were alleged to have successively purchased the lot and assumed the payment of the note, and T. B. Brite, a purchaser in possession. Brite inter-pleaded W. T. Brown, the present defendant in error, his vendor, praying for judgment over against him on his warranty of title in the event a foreclosure was decreed. Brown, in turn, interpleaded John T. Carter, the plaintiff in error, charging him with deceit, and seeking judgment against him for any amount he might have to pay on account of a foreclosure. Upon a trial Thompson was given a judgment for the amount due upon the note, but was denied a foreclosure of his lien. He appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court wherein a foreclosure of the lien was denied, rendered judgment in favor of Thompson for its foreclosure, and remanded the case at Brown’s instance for trial of the issue between him and Carter. Thompson v. Keys, 162 S. W. 1196. Thereupon Brown, by amended pleading, sought a recovery in damages against Carter on account of his alleged fraud for an amount less than $1,000. He obtained a judgment for $359.56. It was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals; and the review of its judgment is sought by the petition for writ of error filed by Carter, wbicb tbe defendant in error bas filed a motion to dismiss.

Because of the amount involved, Brown’s action for damages against Carter was cognizable by the county court; and in such a case the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Appeals is final. It was a distinct controversy from that between Thompson and the other parties to the suit in, respect to the foreclosure of the lien upon the lot, and its original inclusion within that suit does not confer jurisdiction in this court over it. This jurisdiction question was presented and ruled upon in Brown v. Cates, 99 Tex. 133, 87 S. W. 1149, in which it was said:

“Where cases which are entirely distinct are thus connected together, and one, considered by itself, is not within our jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is too small, we have declined to entertain it. Any other rule would put it within the power of parties to bring within the revisory jurisdiction of this court causes in which the law intends the action of the Court of Civil Appeals shall be final, by merely joining them with others on which they are in no way legally dependent.”

That decision governs tbe motion, wbicb is accordingly sustained, and the petition for writ of error dismissed. 
      @=»For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     