Another v. Bloomfield
| Decision Date | 01 January 1851 |
| Parties | ABLE AND ANOTHER v. BLOOMFIELD. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
There is no appeal from a Justice's Court to the District Court.
Where the court a quo did not have jurisdiction, the appellate court cannot acquire it by appeal.
Want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit will arrest a cause at any stage of the proceedings.
Upon an application under the statute (Hart. Dig., p. 882) requiring an affirmance of judgment without reference to the merits, the Supreme Court will look into the record to determine the question whether the District Court had jurisdiction, but not for the purpose of revising any error that may have been committed in the exercise of that jurisdiction.
Appeal from Cherokee. Motion by appellee to affirm without reference to the merits.
G. A. Everts, for appellee.
This is an application by the appellee for an affirmance of judgment under the 7th section of the act of 1850. (Hart. Dig., p. 882.)
On inspection of the judgment it appears to have been rendered in a case brought by appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, and for an amount not within the jurisdiction of the District Court. That court, therefore, had not jurisdiction to render the judgment which we are asked to affirm. It is well settled that when the court a quo had not jurisdiction, the appellate court cannot acquire it by appeal. It is manifest that this court cannot give judgment in a case not within its jurisdiction. Want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit will arrest a cause at any stage of the proceedings. If the District Court had jurisdiction upon an application like the present, under the statute requiring an affirmance of judgment without reference to the merits, this court would not look into the record for the purpose of revising any error which may have been committed in the exercise of that jurisdiction; but not having jurisdiction of the case, it cannot be entertained for any purpose, and must therefore be stricken from the docket.
Ordered accordingly.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Live Oak County v. Lower Nueces River Water Supply Dist.
...readily and concur in the proposition that the question of jurisdiction is fundamental and can be raised at any time. Able v. Bloomfield, 6 Tex. 263, 264 (1851); Trinity Life & Annuity Society v. Love, 102 Tex. 277, 116 S.W. 1139 (1909); Nevitt v. Wilson, 116 Tex. 29, 285 S.W. 1079, 1084, 4......
-
Dewitt v. Herron
...repugnant to the constitution.” And the court might have added, repugnant to or not authorized by law. And again, in the case of Able v. Bloomfield, 6 Tex. 263, this court said: “Want of jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit will arrest a cause at any stage of the proceedings.” See......
-
Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. City of Kountze
...was not raised directly by the parties, we must first determine our jurisdiction over the controversy. As was said in Able v. Bloomfield, 6 Tex. 263, 264 (1851), 'Want of jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit, will arrest a cause at any stage of the proceedings.' See also, City of ......
-
Weeks v. De Young
...could not be conferred by appeal upon the district court. Baker v. Chisholm, 3 Tex. 157; Davis v. Stewart, 4 Tex. 223; Able v. Bloomfield, 6 Tex. 263; Horan v. Wahrenberger, 9 Tex. 317 ; Neil v. State, 43 Tex. "The judgments both of the probate court and of the district court on appeal were......