Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Rainbolt

• Decision Date: 19 April 1887
• Citation: 4 S.W. 356
• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Parties: GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. RAINBOLT.

Page 356

4 S.W. 356

GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. RAINBOLT.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 19, 1887.

Appeal from Milam county.

Ballinger, Mott & Terry, for appellants. E. L. Antony, for appellee.

GAINES, J.

This suit was brought by appellee in the district court of Milam county to recover of appellant a penalty of $500 for an overcharge of passenger fare, under the provisions contained in articles 4256 and 4258 of the Revised Statutes. At the Galveston term, 1885, this court, adopting the conclusions of the commission of appeals in the case of Jones v. Breedlove, held that the district court did not have jurisdiction of a suit for the recovery of money of the exact amount of $500. We see no reason for departing from that ruling; and, upon the authority of that case, the judgment of the court below in the cause before us must be reversed, and the suit dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.

The opinion of the commissioners not having been reported, it is considered a proper occasion upon which to set forth the grounds upon which the jurisdiction in these cases has been denied. It is provided by section 8 of article 5 of the constitution that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of "all suits, complaints, or pleas whatever, without regard to any distinction between law and equity, when the matter in controversy shall be valued at or amount to five hundred dollars, exclusive of interest." Section 16 of the same article, in defining the jurisdiction of the county courts, contains this language: "And they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil cases, when the matter in controversy shall exceed two hundred dollars, and not exceed five hundred dollars, exclusive of interest; and concurrent jurisdiction with the district court when the matter in controversy shall exceed five hundred dollars, and not exceed one thousand dollars, exclusive of interest." It is apparent from the language quoted that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two provisions. The district courts cannot have jurisdiction when the amount involved is precisely $500, and the county court exclusive jurisdiction for the same amount. There is an evident mistake, and we must determine, by construction, which of the two provisions expresses the real intent of the framers of the constitution. There being but the one sum concerning which the doubt exists, it is essentially a matter of no moment upon which court the jurisdiction should have been conferred. There is nothing, then, in the reason or policy of the law, to aid us in solving the difficulty. The conflict is evidently the result of inadvertence; and we think the mistake is more likely to have been made in the former than in the latter section.

Section 8, which defines the jurisdiction of the district court, is literally copied from the corresponding section of the constitution of 1866, in so far as this could be done, in view of the difference between the powers conferred by the two instruments. The language of the provision in question is the same in both, except that the word "five" appears in this provision, instead of the word "one" in the former. It would seem, therefore, that in drawing section 16 of article 5 of the present constitution, its framers having...