San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Blair

• Citation: 196 S.W. 502
• Decision Date: 27 June 1917
• Docket Number: (No. 3947.)
• Parties: SAN ANTONIO & A. P. RY. CO. v. BLAIR.
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas

Page 502

196 S.W. 502

SAN ANTONIO & A. P. RY. CO. v. BLAIR.

(No. 3947.)

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 27, 1917.

Action by H. A. Blair against the San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Company. Plaintiff died during its pendency, and the action was revived in the name of Mrs. Lula Blair, administratrix. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, where the judgment was affirmed. 184 S. W. 566. Defendant brought error. The Supreme Court referred the petition to a committee of judges of the Court of Civil Appeals under Acts 1917, c. 76, which refused the writ. Motion of defendant for consideration of petition by Supreme Court overruled.

See, also, 173 S. W. 1186.

Boyle & Storey, of San Antonio, Williamson & Klingemann, of Karnes City, and Proctor, Vandenberge, Crain & Mitchell, of Victoria, for appellant. C. C. Harris and Arnold, Cozby & Peyton, all of San Antonio, for appellee.

PHILLIPS, C. J.

This motion assails the constitutionality of the recent act of the Legislature. (Acts of 1917, chapter 76, page 142), authorizing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or any two of the Justices thereof, to designate a committee of three of the Justices of the Courts of Civil Appeals, empowered to pass upon petitions for writs of error seeking a review of causes by the Supreme Court, except in certain classes of cases, referred to them by the Supreme Court, and grant or refuse the writ, or dismiss the petition, in accordance with the practice of the Supreme Court. It is urged that on account of the invalidity of the act we should consider the petition for writ of error in the case, it having been previously by us referred to the Committee of Judges and passed upon by them adversely to the plaintiff in error. A number of similar motions have been filed in other cases.

The act became immediately effective upon its approval by the Governor. Its administration was inaugurated by the court's designation, on March 28, 1917, of three Justices selected from different Courts of Civil Appeals to serve in the capacity authorized until its further orders, and the reference to them of pending petitions for writs of error, except in the classes of cases exempted from the act's operation. The act was set in motion because of the court's view that it was constitutional and valid, the various grounds urged against it in all these motions having been fully considered. Had we not determined it to be a valid act, we would not have proceeded under it. It was intended, therefore, that our action in inaugurating it should serve as in effect a judgment in respect to its validity, and should be so understood.

In view of these motions it is but proper, however, that we should state the grounds which in our opinion sustain the act. We have not the time now, in the closing hours of the term, nor the inclination to pursue the subject at length. The validity of the act may be established upon principles so plain and unmistakable, that any extended discussion of the question is in our judgment unnecessary,

It should be stated that Mr. Justice Hawkins did not agree with the majority of the court in their determination of the validity of the act. He accordingly dissented from the court's action in proceeding under it, announcing that he would later file an opinion expressing his views. He has not completed his opinion, but will file it when finished. Because of the court's previous settlement of the question, he concurs in its present action in overruling this and other like motions, referring, however, to his opinion, to be filed, for a statement of his position.

The act, as is revealed upon its face, had for its purpose relieving this court, for a season, from the necessity of reviewing the large number of petitions for writs of error presented to it, so as to enable it, during such period, to devote its time to its cause docket and bring an end to its congested condition. For a number of years the petitions for writs of error filed annually in the court, seeking revision of judgments of the Courts of Civil Appeals, have been in excess of 500 in number, gradually increasing each year. Each requires deliberate and accurate consideration. To keep abreast of them, practically the whole time of the court has been required throughout each term. The result was an enforced neglect of causes in which writs of error had been granted and which were pending for submission and decision. Postponement of the decision of those causes by the condition thus brought about amounted in many instances to a denial of justice. By giving the petitions for writs of error its constant attention, the court had been able to keep that docket fairly cleared. But this was true only because it had given them nearly its whole time in each term. Had its time been given in equal degree to the decision of pending causes, the congested condition of the latter docket might have been obviated; but it recognized that in that event the petitions for writs of error would accumulate so rapidly as to result in a similar congestion in respect to them.

It is sometimes overlooked that with the inauguration of the Courts of Civil Appeals as a part of our judicial system, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was fixed in the Constitution for the review, originally, of causes determined by but three of such courts, and only three of those courts were originally established. The Courts of Civil Appeals have, however, been trebled in number. There are now nine of them. In the meantime, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has remained substantially unchanged, —to no appreciable extent diminished in respect to the time necessarily required for its proper examination of causes presented to it on petition for writ of error. With the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in other words, originally adjusted so as to enable it to properly review causes emanating from but three appellate courts, it has of late years, with substantially no change in its jurisdiction, been charged with the duty of reviewing causes emanating from nine appellate courts. It was the realization of this that has caused it during this latter period to chiefly give its time to the consideration of causes presented on petition for writ of error in an effort to dispose of them as currently filed, leaving it, as already stated, no sufficient time for the decision of pending causes.

This was a condition imperatively demanding relief in the interest of an efficient administration of the law. To relieve it in a practical and inexpensive way by making use of the existing judicial machinery of the State was the design of this act. The thought of its framers doubtless was that under its operation for a short period the Supreme Court could clear its docket and be in position to resume the consideration of cases on petition for writ of error. For that reason the operation of the act is in effect limited to the time necessary for that purpose.

The invalidity of the act is asserted both as it affects the duties and powers of the Courts of Civil Appeals, and as it relates to the exercise by the Supreme Court of the jurisdiction with which it is invested by law.

The effect of the act upon the Courts of Civil Appeals and their Justices will be first considered.

It is claimed that the use for the purposes of the act of three Justices from three different Courts of Civil Appeals will leave the courts of which they are members unable to perform their functions. This question was settled in City of Austin v. Nalle, 85 Tex. 520, 22 S. W. 668, 960. It was there held that under the statute prescribing that "a majority of the several Courts of Civil Appeals shall constitute a quorum for the dispatch of business," a lawful Court of Civil Appeals is constituted by two members present and acting.

The act, as it plainly shows, does not create a court. It simply defines and adds certain duties to those of the Justices of the Courts of Civil Appeals already existing. The duties thus added are those which the Justices are to discharge as Justices of such courts and only in their capacity as such. The Constitution—section 6 of article 5,—after defining the jurisdiction of the Courts of Civil Appeals, provides that "said courts shall have such other jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law." Under this provision the Legislature has without challenge conferred other jurisdiction upon those courts, namely, jurisdiction of causes not arising within their districts, but transferred to them under order of the Supreme Court from other districts. If the Legislature may bestow, generally, upon the Courts of Civil Appeals other jurisdiction than that specifically conferred by the Constitution, no sound reason can be advanced for denying it the right to equally impose upon the Justices of them additional judicial duties which have relation simply to a method of appeal of causes determined by those courts.

The Constitution declares that the judicial power of the State shall be vested in the courts named in section 1 of article 5 and in such other courts as may be...