City of San Antonio v. Tobin

• Decision Date: 22 May 1907
• Citation: 102 S.W. 403
• Parties: CITY OF SAN ANTONIO v. TOBIN. SAME v. BECK.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

102 S.W. 403

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO v. TOBIN.

SAME v. BECK.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 22, 1907.

Application for Writ of Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fourth Supreme Judicial District.

Two actions against the city of San Antonio, one by W. G. Tobin, and the other by Walter Beck. From a judgment of the county court for each of the plaintiffs, defendant appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, where the judgments were affirmed (101 S. W. 263, 269). Application for a writ of error in each of the actions. Dismissed.

Joseph Ryan, R. J. Boyle, and Houston Bros., for applicant.

GAINES, C. J.

Each of these suits was brought in the county court of Bexar county against the city of San Antonio to recover a sum of money within the jurisdiction of that court. Each of the plaintiffs recovered a judgment which was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. The city has applied for a writ of error in each of the cases, and in each seeks to show that this court has jurisdiction to grant the writ on the ground that it involves the validity of a statute. The provision relied on is contained in article 996 of the Revised Statutes of 1895, and is as follows: "The judgment of the Courts of Civil Appeals shall be conclusive in all cases on the facts of the case, and a judgment of such courts shall be conclusive on the law and fact, nor shall a writ of error be allowed thereto from the Supreme Court in the following cases, to wit: Any civil case appealed from a county court or from a district court when under the Constitution a county court would have had original or appellate jurisdiction to try it, except in probate matters and in cases involving the revenue laws of the state or the validity of a statute." The question made in these cases is as to the validity of section 34a of the charter of the city of San Antonio. The precise question was passed upon by the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth Supreme Judicial District in the following cases: Callaghan v. McGown, 90 S. W. 319, Callaghan v. Tobin, 90 S. W. 328, and Callaghan & Irvin, 90 S. W. 335, in each of which the section in question was held valid. This court denied a writ of error in each of the cases and approved the ruling of the Court of Civil Appeals as to the validity of the section. We think, therefore, that there is no longer a question as to the validity of the provision, and that in consequence it should be held that its validity is no longer involved. The purpose of the Legislature in making an...