
    WILSON v. FORD.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Ft. Worth.
    May 17, 1913.
    Rehearing Denied June 14, 1913.)
    1. Courts (§ 122) — Jurisdiction — Amount in Controversy — Pleading.
    Where, in a suit on certain notes and to foreclose a chattel mortgage, in a court the jurisdiction of which depended on the amount in controversy, the petition contained no allegation of the value of the property on which a foreclosure of the lien was sought, it was insufficient to confer jurisdiction.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 413, 427; Dec. Dig. § 122.]
    2. Appeal and Ebbob (§ 635) — Jubisdiotion OP TRIAL COURT.
    Where an appeal was taken from the county court in a suit on certain notes and to foreclose a chattel mortgage, and there was no affirmative showing in the record that the amount in controversy was less than $1,000, so as to be within the trial court’s jurisdiction, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2285, 2776-2782, 2829; Dec. Dig. § 635.]
    Appeal from Wichita County Court; C. B. Felder, Judge.
    Action by Henry Ford against J. D. Wilson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    W. T. Carlton, of Wichita Falls, for appellant. Mathis & Kay, of Wichita Falls, for appellee.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DUNKLIN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of Henry Ford against defendant, J. D. Wilson, instituted' in the county court of Wichita county to recover upon certain promissory notes and for a foreclosure of chattel mortgage liens upon several horses and a crop of 150 acres of cotton.

Neither the original nor the supplemental petition, which constituted the pleadings upon which plaintiff relied upon the trial, contains any allegation of the value of the-property upon which a foreclosure of lien was sought. According to the well-settled1 rule, if the value of this property exceeded the sum of $1,000, the county court had no' jurisdiction of plaintiff’s suit.

In the absence of an affirmative showing of jurisdiction of the county court to' hear and determine the controversy, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded; and it is so ordered. Ware v. Clark, 125 S. W. 618; Stricklin v. Arrington & Carter, 141 S. W. 189.

Reversed and remanded.  