TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Marshall v. Taylor

Marshall v. Taylor, 7 Tex. 235 (1851)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1851
Judges
Wheeler
Citations
7 Tex. 235
Cited by 24
Headnotes
Where suit wag brought in the District Court to foreclose a mortgage upon personal property alleged to be of the value of one hundred and fifty dollars, given to secure tlie payment of seventy-five dollars: Held, That the court had jurisdiction. (Note 35.) Note 35. — Lane v. Howard, 22 T., 7; Hargrave v. Simpson, 25 T., 396.
Summary
Error from Leon. This was a suit in the District Court, to foreclose a mortgage upon personal property, alleged to be of the value of one hundred and lifiy dollars, given to secure the payment of seventy-live dollars. It was objected, that the District Court liad not jurisdiction of the case. The court overruled the objection ; there was judgment for the plaintiff. That the action on said mortgage could not be legally instituted for more than tlie sum of seventy-five dollars, see mortgage on which action was brought. That the action was brought de facto for the sum of seventy-five dollars, see Taylor’s petition. That the judge erred in overruling the plea to tlie jurisdiction, see art. 4., sec. 10, Constitution.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wheeler

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Wheeler, J.

We are of opinion that the court did not err in overruling tlie exceptions to its jurisdiction. The matter in controversy was not only the debt, but the security given for its payment. The litigation comprehended, as well the subject-matter of the mortgage, as the debt; and that was alleged to be of value sufficient to give jurisdiction to tlie District Court. (Tarbox v. Kennan, 3 Tex. R., 7.)

We are of opinion that the judgment be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 24 cases

View all citing references →
1858–1859: 11880–1881: 11882–1883: 21884–1885: 11886–1887: 11890–1891: 21894–1895: 21904–1905: 11910–1911: 21916–1917: 11918–1919: 11920–1921: 11922–1923: 31928–1929: 11930–1931: 11932–1933: 11938–1939: 11966–1967: 118582026peak 1922 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Williams v. Givins11 S.W.2d 224 (Tex. App. 1928)
  2. Davis v. First Nat. Bank of El Paso248 S.W. 119 (Tex. App. 1923)
  3. Olloqui v. Duran60 S.W.2d 808 (Tex. App. 1933)
  4. Cotulla v. Thomas Goggan & Bros.13 S.W. 742 (Tex. 1890)
  5. Dwyer v. Bassett & Bassett63 Tex. 274 (1885)
  6. Austin Real Estate & Abstract Co. v. Bahn29 S.W. 641 (Tex. 1895)

Most recent

  1. Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionNo. C-757 (Tex. Att'y Gen. July 2, 1966)
  2. Bishop & Babcock Sales Co. v. Haley115 S.W.2d 772 (Tex. App. 1938)
  3. Olloqui v. Duran60 S.W.2d 808 (Tex. App. 1933)
  4. Cleckler v. American Motors Finance Co.24 S.W.2d 514 (Tex. App. 1930)
  5. Williams v. Givins11 S.W.2d 224 (Tex. App. 1928)
  6. Butts v. Hudgins255 S.W. 762 (Tex. App. 1923)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list