Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Tex. 578

Smith v. State

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1851

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1851-07-01

<p>■Smith, an attorney at law, filed a brief in the Supreme Court in a case wherein he was appellant, in which he used language reflecting on the judges of the second and third judicial districts. The judge of the second judicial district caused Smith to be cited to appear at the next term of the District Court for Travis to show cause why his license should not be canceled. Smith appeared and made defense; the judge ordered his name to be stricken from the roll of attorneys; there was no trial by jury, nor did it appear that a jury trial had been demanded; the Supreme Court had, previous to the issue of the citation, issued an attachment against Smith for the same cause, and it was still pending: Held. That the order or judgment striking the name of Smith from the roll of attorneys could not be successfully impeached in a collateral proceeding.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1851-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1973

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

101851186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Lipscomb, J.

¶1We can perceive no error in the judgment. The defenses all amount to an attempt to impeach the judgment of the District Court in a collateral way. Slow this cannot be done unless it should appear to this court that the court rendering the judgment had no jurisdiction. We can entertain no doubt but that the court had jurisdiction of a contempt. Whether it exercised it correctly is a question that can only be investigated on a proceeding having directly in view its reversal. None of the objections taken go to the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment, but all of them constitute at most only such matter as should have bee\i offered in defense on the trial of the contempt. If they had been offered and overruled on the trial, the correctness of the decisions of the court in so overruling them could have been examined in this court on an appeal or writ of error from the final judgment of the court in the matter. The judgment of the court of Travis county, being a court of competent jurisdiction, whether it be erroneous or not, must be conclusive in all courts when it may be drawn collaterally before them until it has been reversed or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction to try the errors that may have been committed in a proceeding instituted for that express object. This doctrine has been so fully discussed and firmly settled that it is not now to be questioned. (Sutherland v. De Leon, 1 Tex. R., 250; Lynch et al. v. Baxter and Wife, decided at the last term of this court, but not published.)

¶2We are therefore of opinion that there is no error in the judgment of the court below, and that it be affirmed.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/5/tex/578 · .json · Public domain