
    DROMGOOLE BROS. v. L. A. EPSTEIN & CO.
    (No. 5422.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
    Feb. 10, 1915.)
    1. Appeal and Error <®=3756 — Briefs—Motions to Affirm.
    Where motions to-affirm show the correctness of the judgment, they serve the purpose of a brief on the part of the appellees.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3091; Dec. Dig. <@=>756.]
    2. Justices of the Peace <@=>141 — Appeal— Jurisdiction — Cross-Action.
    Where the offset pleaded in a cross-action in justice’s court was not within the jurisdiction of that court, the county court could not acquire jurisdiction thereof on appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Justices of the Peace, Cent. Dig. §§ 467-476; Dec. Dig. <@=>141.]
    Appeal from Bexar County Court for Civil Cases; John H. Clark, Judge.
    Action brought in justice’s court by L. A. Epstein & Co. against Dromgoole Bros. From judgment for plaintiffs in the county court, defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    ' Leo Tarleton, of San Antonio, for appellant. Schlesinger & Schlesinger and Chas. E. Lee, all of San Antonio, for appellee.
   FLY, C. J.

This is a suit on an account, for $169.26, which was instituted in the justice’s court by appellees against appellants. Appellants admitted that they were justly indebted to appellees in the sum of $143.44, but filed a cross-action, alleging that appel-lees were indebted to them in the sum - of $287.70, but only prayed for $30. The court instructed a verdict for appellees in the sum of $143.44. There is no statement of facts in the record.

Appellants have failed to file a brief in this court, but have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, and appellees have filed motions which are styled “Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal of Appellant and Affirm Judgment of the Lower Court.” Of course, that would be an impossibility; but, as the motions show the correctness of the judgment, they serve the purpose of a brief on the part of appellees. Davison v. Keeton, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 65, 73 S. W. 1083; Ball v. Dignowity, 68 S. W. 800; Cox v. Hickman, 110 S. W. 549; Beck v. Hancock, 122 S. W. 419.

The offset pleaded was not within the jurisdiction of the justice’s court, and that court being without jurisdiction of the cross-action, the county court could not acquire jurisdiction. Times Pub. Co. v. Hill, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 389, 81 S. W. 806; Railway v. Canyon Coal Co., 102 Tex. 478, 119 S. W. 294.

The judgment is affirmed.  