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 |
John W. Davis, F. H. Robertson, and Robt. H. Rogers, for plaintiffs in error. A. P. McCormick and Clark & Bolinger, for defendants in error.
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: But 996 contains, among others, the following provisions: The question is, is this a ? 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Permian Oil Co. v. Smith
...in form of trespass to try title. Wright v. Bell, 94 Tex. 577, 63 S.W. 623; Schiele v. Kimball, 113 Tex. 1, 194 S.W. 944; Cox v. Finks, 91 Tex. 318, 43 S.W. 1; v. Coleman County, 95 Tex. 445, 67 S.W. 1016. So, for approximately a hundred years the jurisprudence of Texas has recognized a dif......
-
Permian Oil Co. v. Smith
...survey 34; and the controversy between them was purely a case of boundary. Schley v. L. & H. Blum, 85 Tex. 551, 22 S. W. 667; Cox v. Finks, 91 Tex. 318, 43 S. W. 1; Steward v. Coleman County, 95 Tex. 445, 67 S. W. 1016; Mansfield v. Gilbert, 99 Tex. 18, 86 S. W. This being the nature of the......
-
Permian Oil Co. v. Smith
...thus presented was not one simply of boundary. Under a similar state of facts it was determined by our Supreme Court, in Cox v. Finks, 91 Tex. 318, 43 S. W. 1, 2, that the question involved was not purely one of boundary. In that case, as in the case of Monroe v. Hickox, it appeared that th......
-
Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. Whiteman
...sufficient warrant for the statement that the suit as finally developed was simply one to determine a disputed boundary line. Cox v. Finks, 91 Tex. 318, 43 S.W. 1; Schley v. Blum, 85 Tex. 551, 22 S.W. 667; Steward v. Coleman County, 95 Tex. 445, 67 S.W. 1016; Wright v. Bell, 94 Tex. 577, 63......