York v. State of Texas

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation34 L.Ed. 604,137 U.S. 15,11 S.Ct. 9
Decision Date03 November 1890

137 U.S. 15
11 S.Ct. 9
34 L.Ed. 604
November 3, 1890.

On the 14th day of November, 1888, a personal judgment was rendered in the district court of Travis county, Tex.,

Page 16

against the plaintiff in error, which judgment was subsequently affirmed by the supreme court of the state. 11 S. W. Rep. 869. Error is now alleged in this: that the district court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. The record discloses that on October 20, 1885, the defendant leased from the state certain school lands, at a stipulated rental. The lease provided that in all suits thereunder the venue should be laid in Travis county, Tex. The state filed its petition on February 15, 1888, alleging nonpayment of the rent due in 1886 and 1887. The defendant being a non-resident, a citizen of St. Louis, Mo., a notice in accordance with the provisions of the statute was served upon him personally in that city. No question is made but that the service was in strict conformity with the letter of the statute. On March 9, 1888, the defendant appeared by his counsel, and filed a special plea, challenging the jurisdiction of the court, on the ground that he was a non-resident and had not been served personally with process within the limits of the state. This plea was overruled. Thereafter, and on the 5th day of October, 1888, the defendant appeared by his attorneys in open court, demanded a jury, paid the jury fee, and had the cause transferred to the jury docket. On the 6th day of October he again filed a plea to the jurisdiction, on the same ground, which was also overruled. On the 14th day of November, when the cause was reached and called for trial, he again appeared by by his attorneys, waived his right of trial by a jury and his demand of a jury, and declined to further answer to the cause, relying solely upon his plea to the jurisdiction. The court thereupon proceeded to render judgment against him, which, as heretofore stated, was affirmed by the supreme court.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 16-19 intentionally omitted]

Page 19

J. S. Hogg, Atty. Gen. Tex., for the State.


It was conceded by the district and the supreme courts that the service upon the defendant in St. Louis was a nullity, and gave the district court no jurisdiction; but it was held that, under the peculiar statutes of the state of Texas, the appearance for the purpose of pleading to the jurisdiction was a voluntary appearance, which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
119 cases
  • Mabee v. McDonald
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • April 14, 1915
    ...S. W. 869 (1889), adhering to Pennoyer v. Neff, but construing our statutes relative to appearance and answer; also York v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15, 11 Sup. Ct. 9, 34 L. Ed. 604. In Wilson v. Zeigler, supra, wherein Wilkinson had been cited by publication only, the trial court "Wilkinson being ......
  • Works v. George B. Swift Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 31, 1913
    ...Wall. 58, 22 L. Ed. 70;Hall v. Lanning, 91 U. S. 160, 23 L. Ed. 271;Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. Ed. 565;York v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15, 11 Sup. Ct. 9, 34 L. Ed., 604;Wilson v. Seligman, 144 U. S. 41, 12 Sup. Ct. 541, 36 L. Ed. 338;McCord Lumber Co. v. Doyle, 97 Fed. 22, 38 C. C. A. 3......
  • Alton v. Alton, 11087.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • October 15, 1953
    ...drastic than this provision is the legislation approved as consistent with due process by the Supreme Court in York v. State of Texas, 1890, 137 U.S. 15, 11 S.Ct. 9, 34 L.Ed. 604, under which a defendant could not even appear to challenge the jurisdiction of a court without submitting fully......
  • Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Same 12 8212 17, 1938, s. 19
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1938
    ...process does not require an opportunity to be heard before judgment, if defenses may be presented upon appeal. York v. Texas, 137 U.S. 15, 20, 21, 11 S.Ct. 9, 10, 34 L.Ed. 604; American Surety Company v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156, 168, 53 S.Ct. 98, 102, 77 L.Ed. 231, 86 A.L.R. 298; Moore Ice Cr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT