Whitner v. Belknap

• Decision Date: 27 February 1896
• Citation: 34 S.W. 594
• Parties: WHITNER v. BELKNAP et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 594

34 S.W. 594

WHITNER v. BELKNAP et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 27, 1896.

Certified questions from court of civil appeals, Fifth supreme judicial district.

Action between J. C. Whitner and W. B. Belknap & Co., appealed from the "Texarkana civil and criminal court." Certain questions were certified from the court of civil appeals to determine the constitutionality of an act creating the Texarkana civil and criminal court. The act is decided to be unconstitutional, but the court of civil appeals retains jurisdiction of this appeal for the purpose of determining the matters involved therein.

Crawford & Crawford, for appellant. Smelser & Mahaffey, P. A. Turner, Vaughan & Vaughan, C. S. Todd, Talbot & Hart, Hudgins & Estes, H. C. Hynson, R. W. Rodgers, Henry & Henry, Dan T. Leary, and F. M. Ball, for appellees.

BROWN, J.

The court of civil appeals for the Fifth supreme judicial district has certified to this court the following statement and questions:

"In the above-entitled cause the following issues of law arise, which this court deems it advisable to present to the supreme court of the state of Texas for adjudication, to wit:

"Question 1. Is the act of the twenty-fourth legislature of the state of Texas, entitled `An act to establish a court at Texarkana, in Bowie county, to be styled "Texarkana Civil and Criminal Court," and to prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof, and to conform the jurisdiction of other courts thereto,' constitutional?

"Question 2. Does article 5, section 1, of the constitution of Texas, as amended in 1891, authorize the legislature to create a court for a part of a county to the exclusion of the regular district court, and to be held at a place other than the county seat, such as is provided in the act above mentioned?

"Question 3. Does section 20 of said act confer upon this court jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from said court?"

It is not necessary for us to determine at the present time what character of courts other than those named in the constitution may be created by the legislature under the provisions of article 5, § 1, of the constitution as amended, for the reason that the legislature has not, in our opinion, attempted in this instance to exercise the power therein conferred. The act of the 24th legislature of the state of Texas entitled "An act to establish a court at Texarkana, in Bowie county, to be styled the `Texarkana Civil and Criminal Court,' and to prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof, and to conform the jurisdiction of other courts thereto" (Rev. St. tit. 21, c. 6), must be sustained as constitutional unless its enactment is expressly or by necessary implication prohibited by the constitution. Lytle v. Halff, 75 Tex. 132, 12 S. W. 610. In order to determine whether the passing of such law is prohibited by the constitution, we must first ascertain what has in fact been done by the legislature by the enactment thereof. The law does not create a separate judicial district in Bowie county, which the legislature might have done, but it provides specially that the court shall be presided over by the judge of the Fifth judicial district, or the judge of any district in which Bowie county may be thereafter embraced. It was then, and to continue, part of an existing district. It does not, therefore, come within the principles announced in the case of Lytle v. Halff, cited above. We will examine the law, to ascertain what its effect is.

First. It establishes a court to be held in the city of Texarkana, Bowie county; and within that portion of Bowie county described it confers upon the court thus established jurisdiction as follows: "All the jurisdiction, power and authority in both civil and criminal cases which is now or may hereafter be vested by the constitution and the laws of this state in the district courts of this state, except such jurisdiction, power and authority as are specially withheld from the said court by this chapter, and said court shall also have original jurisdiction of all suits, complaints and pleas whatever without regard to any distinction between law and equity as well as of all proceedings under distress warrants issued by justices of the peace when the amount in controversy shall exceed in value $200 exclusive of interest; but said court shall have no jurisdiction in probate matters and the jurisdiction of the county court of Bowie county as a probate court and the jurisdiction of the district court of said county in probate matters shall not in any manner be affected, altered or changed by this chapter. Said Texarkana civil and criminal court shall also have exclusive original jurisdiction of all criminal cases both felonies and misdemeanors where the offense is committed in that portion of Bowie county described in article 1531j and over which justices' of the peace and mayors' or recorders' courts have not jurisdiction under the laws of this state, and shall have appellate jurisdiction of all cases civil and criminal over which justices' of the peace and mayors' and recorders' courts of cities and towns have original jurisdiction and in which cases appeals are now or may hereafter be allowed to be prosecuted to the county court." Thus all of the jurisdiction which might have been conferred under the constitution upon the district court of Bowie county, except in probate matters, has been conferred upon this court, and all of the jurisdiction of the county court, except in probate matters, has been likewise conferred upon it. It also provides that it should have and exercise all jurisdiction thereafter conferred upon district courts by the constitution or law.

Second. The judge of the district court of the Fifth judicial district, in...