Snyder v. Porter
| Decision Date | 22 May 1883 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4785. |
| Citation | 59 Tex. 448 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | D. H. SNYDER v. WILEY & PORTER. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Williamson. Tried below before T. P. Hughes, Esq., special judge.
Suit ?? ought in the district court of Williamson county, on the 11th day of June, 1880, by appellees Wiley & Porter, against appellants D. H. Snyder and others, as trustees of the Methodist Episcopal church, at the town of Round Rock in said Williamson county, for the sum of $163.20 and interest, and for the foreclosure of a mechanic's lien alleged to have existed upon the Methodist church building, situated upon lots designated. It was alleged that the lien was fixed by filing and having recorded a bill of particulars and an itemized account, which was attached as an exhibit to the petition.
Appellants denied the existence of the lien and alleged that the same had never been fixed according to law; they admitted that as trustees of the church they owed $93.80 upon the construction of the building as a mere open, unsecured account; they also alleged that the contract under which the house was erected was in writing, and that no lien could be fixed by the bill of particulars. First supplemental petition denying all allegations made by appellants in their answer, but alleged that the contract under which the work was done upon the house was in writing and that the original written contract was lost.
The court, without the intervention of a jury, rendered a personal judgment against the defendants for the sum of $158.20, the court deciding that appellees had fixed no lien upon the property.
Jas. H. Robertson, for appellant, on jurisdiction, cited Lessing v. Cunningham & Hardee, 55 Tex., 234;Moody & Jamison v. Cox, 54 Tex., 492;Hardeman v. Morgan, 48 Tex., 105;Bridges v. Ballew, 11 Tex., 269; Rev. Civ. Stats., art. 1335; Dyer v. Sullivan, 18 Tex., 771;Gonzales College v. McHugh, 39 Tex., 346.
No briefs for appellees on file.
The court, having found correctly under the facts that the appellees were not entitled to enforce the lien claimed, should have proceeded no further in the case. The amount not being of itself sufficient to give the court jurisdiction, the only ground upon which the power to retain the case could rest was that the appellees were entitled to foreclose the lien set out in their pleadings. Having failed to establish this right, and there being no other feature in this case that would authorize the court to proceed further,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. City of Kountze
...no authority under the law to adjudicate the issues presented, it becomes the duty of the court to dismiss it. Snyder v . Wiley & Porter, 59 Tex. 448, 449 (1883); Galley v. Hedrick, 127 S.W.2d 978, 981 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo, 1939, no Being of the opinion that the new legislation has moote......
-
Greenstein, Logan & Co. v. Burgess Marketing, Inc.
...Coun., 644 S.W.2d at 565. The only order a court can enter if it lacks jurisdiction is one of dismissal. See Snyder v. Wiley & Porter, 59 Tex. 448, 449 (1883). The granting of the "special exception" forced the court to dismiss Greenstein Logan's RICO allegations for lack of subject-matter ......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sharp
...authority to adjudicate the issues presented, the court must dismiss the case. City of Beaumont, 484 S.W.2d at 791 (citing Snyder v. Wiley Porter, 59 Tex. 448 (1883), overruled on other grounds by Ablowich v. Greenville Nat'l Bank, 95 Tex. 429, 67 S.W. 881 (1902)). Liberty Mutual suggests t......
-
Galley v. Hedrick
...the time and effort would be squandered and no purpose whatever would be subserved. Able et al. v. Bloomfield, 6 Tex. 263; Snyder v. Wiley et al., 59 Tex. 448; Watson v. Baker, 67 Tex. 48, 2 S.W. 375; Treaccar v. City of Galveston, Tex.Civ. App., 28 S.W.2d Under appellant's second and third......