Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

96 Tex. 359

72 S.W 1059

Bond v. Carter

Texas Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 1903

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1903-03-26

<p>Jurisdiction of Court of Civil Appeals—Transfer of Causes.</p> <p>The Constitution does not limit the jurisdiction of courts of civil appeals to cases arising in their respective districts; under art. 5, sec. 6, they are given such other jurisdiction as may be prescribed by law, and under this the law for transfer of causes from the court of one supreme judicial district to that of another is constitutional.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Said courts shall have such other jurisdiction, original and appellate as may be prescribed by law.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Turtur v. Lee

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1903-03-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 1986

9 state decisions

50190319101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

GAINES, Chief Justice.

¶1 This is a motion to annul an order of this court entered on the 19th day of January, 1903, which directed a transfer of this case from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth Supreme Judicial District to that of the Fourth Supreme Judicial District. The case, together with others, was ordered to be transferred in pursuance of ' the act of the Legislature of April 19, 1895, which for the purpose of equalizing the labors of the courts of civil appeals and expediting the dispatch of business in such courts provided that this court shall make once each year at least an order transferring eases from one of such courts to another. The ground of the motion is that the act is not warranted by the Constitution. The argument is, that the amended article of the Constitution which created the courts of civil appeals limited their jurisdiction to cases arising in their respective districts. The language relied upon to support the position is found in section 6 of article 5 of the Constitution as amended September 22, 1891, and reads' as follows: “Said courts of civil appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of their respective districts, which shall extend to all civil cases of which the district court or county courts have original or appellate jurisdiction, under such restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by law.” Counsel seem to have lost sight of another clause found further on in the same section, which is as follows: “Said courts shall have such other jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law.” Laws 1891, p. 199; AxtelFs Constitution of Texas, p. 135. We think this broad and comprehensive provision amply sufficient to authorize the act in question. The failure of counsel to refer to this clause in the section was probably due to the fact that it was omitted, presumably by inadvertence, "from the copy of the amendment as found in the Constitution printed with the Revised Statutes of 1895.

¶2 The motion is overruled.

¶3 Overruled.

/96/tex/359 · .json · Public domain