Burdett v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Citation | 9 Tex. 43 |
| Parties | JAMES BURDETT v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
In cases of concurrent jurisdiction the court first exercising jurisdiction rightfully acquires the control to the exclusion of the other.
After indictment it is not competent for a justice of the peace to hear a complaint for the same offense, and the certificate of conviction or acquittal before the justice in such a case is no bar to the indictment.
The replication recognized in criminal pleading.
Appeal from Travis. Indictment for assault and battery. The appellant pleaded to the indictment a former recovery before a justice of the peace for the same offense, and produced the certificate of the justice in accordance with the statute in support of his plea. The State, by the district attorney, replied that the defense set up ought not to be allowed, because, he says, that before the justice of the peace who tried and convicted the said Burdett for said offense had any jurisdiction of the same the indictment in this case had been filed in the District Court, &c. To this replication the appellant demurred and the demurrer was overruled; whereupon a trial was had, a verdict and judgment against the appellant.
H. W. Sublett, for appellant.
Attorney General, for appellee.
The only question presented is the sufficiency of the bar of a former recovery as pleaded by the appellant. We have no doubt that the judgment of the District Court overruling the appellant's demurrer to the replication of the State is correct. It is founded on the well-established rule that in a case of concurrent jurisdiction in different tribunals the court first exercising jurisdiction rightfully acquires the control of the case to the exclusion of the other. After the indictment had been found the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction, and his action thereon was a nullity. The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleveland v. Ward
...A. 171, 59 Am. St. Rep. 84; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 162, 103 S. W. 836; Arthur v. Batte, 42 Tex. 159; Burdett v. State, 9 Tex. 43, 44; Goggan & Bros. v. Morrison (Tex. Civ. App.) 163 S. W. 119, 120, and cases there cited; Neill v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.) 234 S. W.......
-
Priddy v. Business Men's Oil Co.
...between the same parties. Drake v. Brander, 8 Tex. 351; York's Adm'r v. Gregg's Adm'x, 9 Tex. 91; Langham v. Thomason, 5 Tex. 127; Burdett v. State, 9 Tex. 43; Oldham v. Erhart, 18 Tex. 147; Cook v. Burnley, 45 Tex. 97; Trawick v. Martin Brown, 74 Tex. 522, 12 S. W. 216 (cited in cases both......
-
Long v. Long
...74 Tex. 522, 12 S. W. 216; Cattlemen's Trust Co. v. Blasingame (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 574; Drake v. Brander, 8 Tex. 351; Burdett v. State, 9 Tex. 43; York v. Gregg, 9 Tex. 91; Oldham v. Erhart, 18 Tex. 147; Cook v. Burnley, 45 Tex. 111; Arthur v. Batte, 42 Tex. 159; Allen v. Read, 66 Te......
-
Way v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.
...of making two suits of what related to the same subject matter, and might as well have been litigated in one." In the case of Burdett v. State, 9 Tex. 43, the Supreme Court "It is founded on the well established rule, that, in a case of concurrent jurisdiction in different tribunals, the Co......