Stewart v. Rockdale State Bank
Decision Date | 06 February 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 6379.,6379. |
Parties | STEWART v. ROCKDALE STATE BANK. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
W. A. Morrison, of Cameron, for plaintiff in error.
E. A. Camp, of Rockdale, for defendant in error.
The Rockdale State Bank sued Bruce Stewart in the county court of Milam county upon a note for $380, and caused an attachment to be levied upon three parcels of real estate. Stewart filed a motion to quash and suppress the attachment because one of the parcels of land belonged to his wife, and the other two constituted his homestead. This plea was overruled by the court, upon the ground that the county court did not have jurisdiction to try the issues raised in the motion. Stewart offered to produce evidence in support of the allegations in his motion. The motion and tender of evidence were denied "because it was the opinion of the court that this court was without power or jurisdiction to hear or determine the ownership of said lands or the question of the homestead rights of the defendant therein."
The judgment, which was in favor of the bank upon the note, recites: "It is further ordered and decreed by the court that the lien created by the issuance and levy of the writ of attachment on said real estate as hereinabove recited, be and the same is here now recognized and preserved, and all of the rights, liens and equities to which plaintiff is entitled by virtue of said writ and levy are here now preserved to him as fully as this court has the power to grant the same, and such rights are decreed to plaintiff."
Stewart has appealed, assigning as error the ruling of the court in denying the motion and in refusing to hear evidence thereon.
In his application for writ of error in his statement of the case, plaintiff in error says:
The plaintiff in error says that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of this cause because:
First. The Court of Civil Appeals erred in its construction, meaning, and application of article 300 of the Revised Statutes of Texas, and in holding that the county court had no power or jurisdiction to abate the writ of attachment on the plaintiff in error's homestead, and in refusing to hear any evidence in reference thereto.
Second. Because the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding and decreeing that the county court had no power or authority to inquire into its jurisdiction in reference to establishing and foreclosing an attachment lien upon a homestead.
He assigned error on the refusal of the court to permit him to prove that two tracts of the land were his homestead, and that the other belonged to his wife. He assigned as error, also, that the court preserved and in effect foreclosed the attachment lien on his homestead and on his wife's separate property.
Plaintiff in error concedes that the county court has jurisdiction to foreclose an attachment lien on land, but insists that the county court in such a suit has jurisdiction also to determine his claim of homestead and the issue that one tract of the land belonged to another, to wit, his wife. He argues that the property was not subject to the attachment, and that his motion to quash was good for that reason.
That a county court has jurisdiction to foreclose an attachment lien on land is settled in this state. Baker v. Pitluk & Meyer, 109 Tex. 237, 205 S. W. 982, and cases cited therein.
The primary contention here, then, is not that the county court does not have jurisdiction to foreclose an attachment lien on real estate, but that it does have jurisdiction to pass upon a claim of homestead in such land, and also upon the title to such land of a person not a party to the suit. He insists that the county court has power to hear evidence and to adjudicate those issues. This on the theory that such issues may be maintained under his motion to quash, vacate, or suppress the writ of attachment by virtue of article 300 of the statutes. Likewise, his tendered issue that one piece of the land belongs to another, to wit, his wife.
Such issues cannot be litigated and adjudged in a county court. Under the Constitution and laws only the district court has jurisdiction over them. Const. art. 5, §§ 8 and 16.
Article 5, § 8, of the Constitution provides: "The District Court shall have original jurisdiction * * * of all suits for trial of title to land and for the enforcement of liens thereon; of all suits for the trial of the right of property levied upon by virtue of any writ of execution, sequestration or attachment when the property levied on shall be equal to or exceed in value five hundred dollars."
Article 5, § 16, of the Constitution provides: "The County Court shall have * * * exclusive jurisdiction in all civil cases when the matter in controversy shall exceed in value $200, and not exceed $500, exclusive of interest, and concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court when the matter in controversy shall exceed $500, and not exceed $1,000, exclusive of interest, but shall not have jurisdiction of suits for the recovery of land."
The provisions of the Constitution relating to the homestead of a family are found in sections 50, 51, and 52 of article 16, which are as follows:
Articles 300 and 301 of the statutes are relied on by plaintiff in error to support his position.
Article 300, R. S., reads: "The execution of the writ of attachment upon any property of the defendant subject thereto, unless the writ should be quashed or otherwise vacated, shall create a lien from the date of such levy on the real estate levied on and on such personal property as remains in the hands of the attaching officer, and on the proceeds of such personal property as may have been sold."
Article 301, R. S., reads: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Merit Management Partners I, L.P. v. Noelke
...estate," a dispute over the existence of which "necessarily involved the trial of title to real estate"); Stewart v. Rockdale State Bank, 124 Tex. 431, 79 S.W.2d 116, 118-19 (1935) (county court does not have jurisdiction to determine a claim of homestead, to correct a deed, or to establish......
-
MBank New Braunfels, NA v. FDIC
...to the plaintiff's debt when established." Stewart v. Rockdale State Bank, 52 S.W.2d 915, 916 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1932), aff'd, 79 S.W.2d 116 (Tex.1935). MBNB denies that what it seeks falls under the label of "prejudgment attachment". Rather, it asserts that the relief it seeks is an af......
-
Kegans v. White
...application and controlling effect in the instant one. Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Daggett, Tex.Com.App., 2 S.W.2d 834; Stewart v. Rockdale State Bank, 124 Tex. 431, 79 S.W.2d 116; Coughran v. Nunez, Tex.Com.App., 127 S.W.2d 885; Hinojosa v. Corona, 254 S. W. 1116; Henslee v. Boyd, 48 Tex.Civ. Ap......
-
Rogers v. Texas Industries, Inc., 3465
...Financial Co. v. Johnson, 152 Tex. 386, 258 S.W.2d 78, 80; Stewart v. Rockdale State Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 915, affirmed 124 Tex. 431, 79 S.W.2d 116; Farmers' National Bank v. Daggett, Tex.Com.App., 2 S.W.2d 834; 6 Tex.Jur.2d 646. The question whether such property is Rogers' homest......