
    Ike Clark v. T. J. Smith, Guardian.
    Decided May 10, 1902.
    Justice Court—Jurisdiction of Counterclaim—Appeal—Final Judgment.
    Where defendant’s counterclaim in the justice court exceeded $200, and the judgment denied plaintiff a recovery, but took no notice of the counterclaim, it disposed of the only issue of which the court had jurisdiction, notwithstanding defendant’s attempt to offset plaintiff’s claim with enough of the counterclaim to reduce the amount thereof for which recovery was sought below $200, and the judgment was therefore a final one, from which an appeal would lie to the county court.
    Appeal from the County Court of Eastland. Tried below before Hon. J. E. Stubblefield.
    
      Earl Conner, for appellant.
    
      B. W. Patterson, for appellee.
   STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

The court erred in holding judgment of the Justice Court not to be final, and in dismissing the appeal on that ground, because the aggregate amount of appellee’s counterclaim exceeded $200 and was not therefore within the jurisdiction of the Justice Court, notwithstanding his attempt to offset appellant’s claim with enough of the counterclaim to reduce the amount for which appellee sought judgment and execution below $200. Gimbel v. Gomprecht, 35 S. W. Rep., 470; Cain v. Culbreath, 35 S. W. Rep., 809; Miller v. Newbaur, 61 S. W. Rep., 974. The Justice Court judgment denied appellant any recovery, and as it thus disposed of the only issue of which that court had jurisdiction it was appealable, though it took no notice of the counterclaim.

Reversed and remanded.  