
    Sherwood v. Douthit.
    where the plaintiff sues for an amount within the jurisdiction of the court, and there is no plea to the jurisdiction, the court may give judgment, though the jury return a verdict for a less sum than that which was requisite to givo jurisdiction, unless it appear that tho plaintiff in stating his demand improperly sought to give it jurisdiction whore it did not rightfully belong. (Note 370
    Error from Bowie. The plaintiff in error sued the defendant in error in the District Court to recover the contents of a promissory note for the payment of ten dollars, and for work and labor alleged to be of the value of one hundred and thirty dollars. The plaintiff filed with the petition an account specifying tiie character and amount of his demand for work and labor. No answer aj> pears to have been filed. The parties appeared and submitted tiie case to a jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the note sued on, with interest, and the further amount oE seventeen dollars and sixty-five cents upon tiie account, making tiie aggregate sum of twenty-nine dollars and seventy-six cen fs: ‘ ‘ And because the verdict was for a less sum than one hundred [dollars,” the court proceeded to set aside the verdict and dismiss the case, 'l'he plaintiff brought a writ of error.
    Note 37.—Ellett v. Powers, 8 T., 113; Gouhenant v. Anderson, 20 T., 459.
    
      J. W. Ellett, for plaintiff in error.
    
      A. Morrill, for defendant in error.
   Wheeler, J.

The only question is whether the court had jurisdiction to give judgment for the plaintiff upon the verdict, it being for an amount less than one hundred dollars.

The plaintiff’s demand as set forth in his petition, and not the amount of the verdict, is in general the criterion by which to determine the question of jurisdiction. Where the plaintiff sues for an amount within the jurisdiction of the court, and there is no plea to the jurisdiction, the court may give judgment, though the jury return a verdict for a less sum than that which was requisite to give jurisdiction, unless it appear that the plaintiff in stating his demand improperly sought to give jurisdiction where it did not rightfully belong. (Tarbox v. Kennon, 3 Tex. R., 7: Austin & Clapp v. Jordan, 4 Id.; Graham o.Roder, Id.)

The court appears to have dismissed the case upon the sole ground that the verdict was for a less sum than one hundred dollars. This was error, for which the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed.  