Bond v. Carter
| Decision Date | 26 March 1903 |
| Citation | 72 S.W. 1059 |
| Parties | BOND v. CARTER. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action between T. B. Bond and S. E. Carter. Judgment rendered, and Bond appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth Supreme Judicial District. Afterwards the Supreme Court made an order transferring the cause to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth Supreme Judicial District. Motion to annul order overruled.
A. P. McKinnon and Vaughan & Ellis, for the motion.
This is a motion to annul an order of this court entered on the 19th day of January, 1903, which directed a transfer of this case from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth Supreme Judicial District to that of the Fourth Supreme Judicial District. The case, together with others, was ordered to be transferred in pursuance of the act of the Legislature of April 19, 1895 (Laws 1895, p. 79, c. 53) which, for the purpose of equalizing the labors of the Courts of Civil Appeals and expediting the dispatch of business in such courts, provided that this court shall make, once each year at least, an order transferring cases from one of such courts to another. The ground of the motion is that the act is not warranted by the Constitution. The argument is that the amended act of the Constitution which created the Courts of Civil Appeals limited their jurisdiction to cases arising in their respective districts, The language relied upon to support the position is found in section 6 of article 5 of the Constitution, as amended September 22, 1891, and reads as follows: "Said Court of Civil Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction co-extensive with the limits of their respective districts, which shall extend to all civil cases of which the district court or county courts have original or appellate jurisdiction, under such restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by law." Counsel seem to have lost sight of another clause, found further on in the same section, which is as follows: "Said courts shall have such other jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law." Laws 1891, p. 199; Axtell's Const. Tex., p. 135. We think this broad and comprehensive provision amply sufficient to authorize the act in question. The failure of counsel to refer to this clause in the section was probably due to the fact that it was omitted, presumably by inadvertence, from the copy of the amendment as found in the Constitution printed with the Revised Statutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. State, No. 07-07-0282-CR (Tex. App. 7/30/2009)
... ... Const. art. V, § 6. In Bond v. Carter, 72 S.W. 1059 (1903), the Texas Supreme Court cited the latter provision in rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of an order ... ...
-
Turtur v. Lee, 08-85-00312-CV
...provide such a statutory expansion, but we conclude that it has not done so with regard to original proceedings. See: Bond v. Carter, 96 Tex. 359, 72 S.W. 1059 (1903). We first turn to a consideration of the territorial limits of our jurisdiction as it existed prior to the last version of A......
-
Witherspoon v. Daviss
... ... The constitutionality of that statute was challenged in Bond v. Carter, 96 Tex. 359, 72 S. W. 1059, but the Supreme Court held that the clause of the Constitution last referred to was ample authority for the ... ...