Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the Tyler term, 1877, and embracing the cases decided during the first part of the Galveston term, 1878. Volume 48. Page: 106

                                
106              HARDEMAN V. MORGAN.      [Tyler Term,
Opinion of tlhe court.
claiming his damages by an answer in the nature of a crossaction,
he is not compelled to seek redress in this way. He
may, undoubtedly, if he prefers it, bring his separate suit in
the court having jurisdiction of such a demand, without regard
to the tribunal in which the plaintiff's action may bo
pending. But, certainly, it cannot for a moment be supposed,
because the ; ! fendant may prosecute his demand against the
plaintiff by an answer in the nature of a cross-action, instead
of bringing his independent and separate suit, that he can,
to enable him to exercise this privilege, take the plainti-L's
case from the tribunal where it belongs, and whose jurisdiction
has properly attached, or that he can litigate his crossaction
il a tribunal which would not have jurisdiction of it,
if he was seeking redress in a separate and independent suit.
Unquestionably, the privilege given by our system to defenldants,
of litigating their right to damages in this way, is limited
by the jurisdiction of the court in which the plaintiff's suit
is brought, or where it is legally pending when the defendant
asserts his demand.
There is nothing in the transcript which warrants our saying
that appellee had asserted a claim for damages against
appellants for an amount of which the District Court is given
jurisdiction by the present Constitution prior to its adoption;
or that he had done this even up to the time that the statutes
transferring all such cases as appellants' from the District
Courts to those of the justices of the peace went into effect.
(General Laws 15th Leg., p. 48.) Appellee's cross-action,
so far as we can tell from the record, was not asserted
until the 19th of September, 1876. Jurisdiction over this
case, as then presented, having been taken, by the adoption
of the Constitution, from the District Court, and given to
the Justices' Court, it could only be legally proceeded with
thereafter in the latter tribunal. The only action which the
District Court could subsequently take in the case, was to
have an order entered upon the minutes of said court transferring
it to the Justices' Court. All other or further proceed