Dupree v. State
| Decision Date | 18 December 1907 |
| Citation | 107 S.W. 926 |
| Parties | DUPREE et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Brown County Court; A. M. Brumfield, Judge.
Proceeding by the state against J. M. Dupree and others. From a judgment for the state, defendants appeal. Reversed, with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
G. N. Harrison and J. W. Wayman, for appellants. R. V. Davidson, Atty. Gen., and Jas. D. Walthall, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered against the appellants by the county court of Brown county based upon a proceeding authorized by the act of the Legislature passed April 5, 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 156, c. 77), commonly known as the "Search and Seizure Law."
Some interesting questions are raised by the assignments of error, which, in view of the dismissal of this appeal, we are not authorized to pass on. The Court of Civil Appeals of the Sixth District, in the case of Meyers v. State, 105 S. W. 48, 19 Tex. Ct. Rep. 800, in a well-considered opinion held that the action to recover by the state under this statute was, in effect, a suit to declare a forfeiture or to recover penalties. The proceeding resorted to in that case and the facts stated are substantially similar to the nature of the proceeding resorted to in this case, and the facts upon which the judgment was based. In the case cited it was held, and we think correctly so, that, the suit being one to declare a forfeiture or to recover penalties, the county court had no jurisdiction, and that by virtue of article 5, § 8, of the Constitution, jurisdiction was exclusive in the district court.
These conclusions lead to a dismissal of this appeal, at the cost of the appellants.
Appeal dismissed.
On Rehearing.
At a former day of this term we rendered a judgment dismissing this appeal, at the cost of the appellants. In the opinion handed down at that time it is stated that this suit was brought in the county court of Brown county, under what is known as the "Search and Seizure Act," passed by the Legislature April 5, 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 156, c. 77), and, following the case of Meyers v. State, 105 S. W. 48, 19 Tex. Ct. Rep. 800, we held that the action was one to recover a penalty under the statute referred to, and that the county court had no jurisdiction of a case of that character, and consequently an appeal from a judgment rendered by that court did not confer jurisdiction upon this court.
In the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Compton
...State v. Eggerman, 81 Tex. 569, 16 S.W. 1067; State v. Stoutsenberger, 4 Willson Civ.Cas.Ct.App. 247, 16 S.W. 304; Dupree v. State, 48 Tex.Civ.App. 272, 107 S.W. 926; State v. San Miguel, 4 Tex. Civ.App. 182, 23 S.W. 389; Myers v. State, This opinion is limited to the case made below and do......
-
Dupree v. State
...the State of Texas against J. M. Dupree and others. There was a judgment for the state, which was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals (107 S. W. 926), and it certifies questions to the Supreme Court. Questions G. N. Harrison and J. W. Wayman, for appellants. R. V. Davidson, Atty. Gen., a......
-
Malone v. State
...had no jurisdiction to hear and determine this cause. Dupree v. State (not yet officially reported, but recently decided by this court) 107 S. W. 926, and Meyers v. State, 105 S. W. 48, 19 Tex. Ct. Rep. 800. We have this day handed down an additional opinion in the Dupree Case, supra, which......