Cox v. Finks

• Decision Date: 09 December 1897
• Citation: 43 S.W. 1
• Parties: COX et al. v. FINKS et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 1

43 S.W. 1

COX et al. v. FINKS et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

December 9, 1897.

Error to court of civil appeals of Third supreme judicial district.

Action by J. H. Finks and others against T. B. Cox and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appealed. Affirmed in court of civil appeals (41 S. W. 95), and defendants bring error. Dismissed.

John W. Davis, F. H. Robertson, and Robt. H. Rogers, for plaintiffs in error. A. P. McCormick and Clark & Bolinger, for defendants in error.

GAINES, C. J.

The defendants in error have filed a motion to dismiss the writ of error which has been submitted with the case. We considered the question of our jurisdiction when we passed upon the application in this case, and reached the conclusion that we had jurisdiction, and granted the writ. Having heard argument upon the motion to dismiss, and having reconsidered the point, we are now of opinion that the decision of the court of civil appeals was final, and that we have no jurisdiction of the case. The article of the Revised Statutes of 1895 which defines in part the jurisdiction of this court reads as follows: "Art. 940. The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of the state, which shall extend to questions of law arising in all civil cases of which the courts of civil appeals have appellate but not final jurisdiction." But 996 contains, among others, the following provisions: "Art. 996. * * * 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: (1) 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. (2) All cases of boundary. (3) All cases of slander and divorce. (4) All cases of contested elections of every character other than for state officers, except where the validity of the statute is attacked by the decision." The question is, is this a "case of boundary"? The word "boundary" has no technical signification. It is a term in common use, and of no doubtful meaning. But when we undertake to give a precise definition of the words "all cases of boundary," as used in article 996, a difficulty arises. Broadly stated, every action for the recovery of land, and in which a question of the true location of any line of a survey may become involved, is a boundary case. The words admit of that construction. On the other hand, a narrow limitation of the scope of the terms would restrict their meaning to cases brought by one owner of a tract of land against the owner of a contiguous survey to determine one or more of the boundary lines between them. The question of the true construction of the terms under discussion has been frequently considered by us, but in most instances our views have not been expressed in writing, and in determining our jurisdiction in such cases we have adopted neither the broad nor the restricted construction above indicated. Every action to try title to land may involve a question of boundary, but our...