Clayton v. Hurt
Decision Date | 14 November 1895 |
Parties | CLAYTON et al. v. HURT et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
L. E. Trezevant, for appellants. Spencer & Kincaid, for appellees.
In this cause the court of civil appeals of the First supreme judicial district have certified to us, with the accompanying statement, the following questions:
Where a court of general jurisdiction, in the exercise of its ordinary judicial functions, renders a judgment in a cause in which it has jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and the subject-matter of the controversy, such judgment is never void, no matter how erroneous it may appear, from the face of the record or otherwise, to be. An analysis and application of this rule to the facts stated will answer the questions certified. Whether a court is to be classed as one of general or one of special and limited jurisdiction depends, not upon the classification of courts of similar names in other jurisdictions, but upon the duties and powers devolved upon it, and the manner of their exercise, as prescribed by the organic law. The constitution of this state, in distributing the judicial power of the government among the various courts, and defining their relation to each other, after providing for the division of the county into...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. District Court of Eighth Jud. Dist.
...that the error of law appearing of record did not show an excess of jurisdiction or usurpation of authority. In the case of Clayton v. Hurt, 88 Tex. 595, 32 S.W. 876, justice of the peace was held to have general jurisdiction of certain cases; that he had the right to determine whether noti......
-
Ex parte Hovermale, 04-82-00017-CV
...cannot be collaterally attacked, citing Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Fisher, 152 Tex. 29, 253 S.W.2d 656 (1952) and Clayton v. Hurt, 88 Tex. 595, 32 S.W. 876 (1895), nevertheless concludes that preemption under McCarty and Hisquierdo renders a judgment, otherwise final, void ab initio. The ......
-
Glenn v. Dallas County Bois D'Arc Island Levee Dist.
...between plaintiff and an unauthorized attorney appointed by the court to represent defendant, and perjured testimony. Clayton v. Hunt, 88 Tex. 595, 32 S. W. 876; Simmons v. Arnim, 110 Tex. 309, 220 S. W. 66; Irion v. Bexar County, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 527, 63 S. W. 552; Maddox v. Summerlin, 92......
-
Matter of Gober
...procedure makes it "voidable' or erroneous." Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex.1990); see also Clayton v. Hurt, 88 Tex. 595, 32 S.W. 876, 877 (1895) (holding that where court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction, "such judgment is never void, no matter how erroneous i......