Turner v. Tucker

• Decision Date: 16 January 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 4050.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL&gt
• Parties: TURNER et al. v. TUCKER et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 149

258 S.W. 149

TURNER et al. v. TUCKER et al.

(No. 4050.)^*

Supreme Court of Texas.

January 16, 1924.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Sixth Supreme Judicial District.

Suit by Jessie Tucker and others against Idell Turner and others. Decree for plaintiffs was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (255 S. W. 641), and the named and certain of the unnamed defendants bring error. Judgments reversed, and cause transferred to district court.

Wheeler & Robison, of Texarkana, for plaintiffs in error.

Keeney & Dalby, of Texarkana, for defendants in error.

GREENWOOD, J.

This was a suit in the district court of the Fifth judicial district of Texas within and for the county of Bowie, to partition lands situated in commissioners' precinct No. 1 of said county, brought by defendant in error Jessie Tucker against plaintiffs in error, who were minors, and others. The district court entered an order transferring the suit to the "Texarkana Court at Law," more than 90 days after the adjournment of the session of the 38th Legislature at which was passed the act creating and establishing the "Texarkana Court at Law," Acts 38th Leg., 1923, c. 69. Plaintiffs in error, by their guardians ad litem, presented a plea to the jurisdiction of the "Texarkana Court at Law," which was overruled, and thereafter a final judgment was rendered ordering that the land be partitioned as prayed for by defendant in error Jessie Tucker, from which judgment an appeal was taken by plaintiffs in error to the honorable Court of Civil Appeals of the Sixth Supreme Judicial District, resulting in an affirmance of the judgment of the "Texarkana Court at Law." Thereupon plaintiffs in error applied for and were granted a writ of error.

The question for determination is whether the plea to the jurisdiction of plaintiffs in error should have been sustained for the reason that the act of the Legislature creating the "Texarkana Court at Law" was and is unconstitutional and void. This act created and established a court of record in Bowie county, called the "Texarkana Court at Law," and granted such court, within the territorial limits of commissioners' precinct No. 1 of Bowie county, including the city of Texarkana, all the civil jurisdiction at law and equity theretofore exercised by the district court of the Fifth judicial district of Texas within and for the county of Bowie, and by the county court of Bowie county, and all such jurisdiction as might be thereafter vested in district and county courts of this state, except that the "Texarkana Court at Law" should not have or exercise jurisdiction over: (a) suits by the state to recover escheats and penalties; (b) cases involving official misconduct or removal from office; (c) contested election cases or proceedings; (d) writs of and proceedings by quo warranto and prohibition; and (e) probate matters involving the administration of estates of decedents and the guardianship of infants or lunatics — so that the jurisdiction of the county and district courts of Bowie county, as probate courts, should not be in any wise reduced or affected. The act provided that the "Texarkana Court at Law" should have exclusive original jurisdiction of misdemeanor criminal cases, except those involving official misconduct, where the offenses were committed within the aforesaid territorial limits, of which the justice or other inferior courts did not have original jurisdiction, and that, as to misdemeanors arising within the city of Texarkana, the "Texarkana Court at Law" should have concurrent jurisdiction with the city corporation court. The act gave the "Texarkana Court at Law" certain appellate jurisdiction, civil and criminal, such as was theretofore exercised by the county court of Bowie county in cases appealed from any justice or corporation court within said territorial limits. The act declared the "Texarkana Court at Law" to be a juvenile court, with full power to try delinquent children and to control and dispose of all neglected or dependent children. The act required the "Texarkana Court at Law" to hold its sessions at the city of Texarkana, in a suitable building or place to be furnished by the city, until a permanent courthouse could be legally constructed and furnished. The act provided for the appointment of a judge and a clerk of said court, each to reside within commissioners' precinct No. 1 of Bowie county. The clerk was required to keep his office in the building wherein said court may be held. The "Texarkana Court at Law" was declared subject to the rules of practice and procedure in the district and county courts of the state. Finally, the act undertook to conform the jurisdiction of the district and county courts of Bowie county and of the corporation court of the city of Texarkana to the changes made by the act. See Acts 38th Leg. c. 69, p. 133.

The act plainly undertakes to establish a court at Texarkana to exercise, within certain territorial limits embracing that city, most of the jurisdiction in civil cases theretofore exercised by the district court of the Fifth judicial district of Texas within and for Bowie county, as well as substantially all jurisdiction, civil and criminal, theretofore exercised by the county court of Bowie county, except in probate matters. This court takes judicial knowledge that within Texarkana is located a large portion of the population and property of Bowie county, and that the town of Boston, and not the city of Texarkana, is the county seat.

The act is claimed to be a valid exercise of the power which the Constitution confers on the Legislature in section 1 of article 5, to "establish such other courts as it may deem necessary, and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof," and to "conform the jurisdiction of the district and other inferior courts thereto." This conclusion is deduced from the propositions that the constitutional provisions are to be liberally construed, and that so construed the Legislature is given absolute authority not only to create new courts and to confide to them any part of the jurisdiction of the district or other inferior courts, but that the Legislature possesses unlimited discretion with respect to the location of such new courts. These propositions are in effect approved in the opinion of the honorable Court of Civil Appeals, with citations to the cases of Carter v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co., 106 Tex. 137, 157 S. W. 1169, and Harris County v. Stewart, 91 Tex. 143, 41 S. W. 650.

In our opinion, the act establishing the "Texarkana Court at Law" certainly violates two imperative provisions of the Constitution, and hence its validity cannot be upheld.

The Constitution of the Republic of Texas, adopted in 1836, provided that the district courts should be held "at such times and places as Congress may by law direct." The Constitutions of the state of Texas of 1845, 1861, and 1876 each required the holding of two terms of the district court at "one place in each county." By the amendment of 1891, it was required in section 7 of article 5 of the Constitution, that each district judge "shall hold the regular terms of his court at the county seat of each county in his district at least twice in each year, in such manner as may be prescribed by law."

Subsequent to the adoption in 1891 of the amendment to section 7 of article 5 of the Constitution, the Legislature passed an act establishing at Texarkana a court to be styled "Texarkana civil and criminal court" (Acts 24th Leg. [1895] c. 11), and granting to it all jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution on district and county courts, save and except in probate matters. When the validity of the act was assailed it was determined by the Supreme Court that the new cour...