
    BARRETT v. WENTZ.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Ft. Worth.
    May 6, 1911.)
    Courts (§ 121) — Jurisdictional Amount.
    On sustaining exceptions to items of damage for conversion, reducing the amount in controversy below its jurisdiction, the county court should dismiss the suit.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 413-428; Dec. Dig. § 121.]
    Appeal from Ochiltree County Court; E. Newton, Judge.
    
      Action by D. E. Wentz against C. H. Barrett. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Reversed and dismissed.
    J. W. Crudgington, for appellant.
    Correll & Sbipp, for appellee.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am, Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   SPEER, J.

D. E. Wentz, as plaintiff, sued C. H. Barrett to recover tbe value of one sow and six sboats, as for a conversion, of tbe alleged value of $140. He sought, also, to recover, in addition to tbe above, tbe sum of $25, tbe alleged value of a litter of pigs, tbe increase of said sow after tbe conversion, and also tbe sum of $235 exemplary damages. Tbe defendant interposed special exceptions covering tbe last two items, wbicb were sustained by tbe court. Tbe defendant neither amended, nor asked leave to amend, bis petition.- Tbe cause proceeded to trial, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for tbe plaintiff for $43.86, and the defendant has appealed.

Upon sustaining appellant’s special exceptions, tbe court should have dismissed ap-pellee’s cause of action, since by this ruling tbe amount in controversy was reduced to tbe sum of $140, an amount not within tbe jurisdiction of the county court. Such has been tbe uniform bolding, so far as we are advised, since Haddock v. Taylor, 74 Tex. 216, 11 S. W. 1093.

Tbe judgment of tbe county court is therefore reversed, and judgment here entered dismissing appellee’s cause of action, for want of jurisdiction in the county court.

Reversed and dismissed.  