Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

99 Tex. 405

89 S.W 956

Ex Parte Lytle

Texas Supreme Court

Decided December 18, 1905

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1905-12-18

Original application to the Supreme Court for writ of habeas corpus. Lytle and other defendants, “ticket scalpers” in San Antonio, and their agents and servants, were enjoined, in a suit in the District Court, from selling reduced rate and nontransfer'able tickets in violation of the law forbidding such transactions.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1905-12-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1975

7 state decisions

3019051910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

WILLIAMS, Associate Justice.

¶1 Under the statute passed by the legislature at its last session, conferring upon this" court jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus in certain cases, the relators have applied to be. released from the custody of the sheriff of Bexar County, in which they are held by him under a commitment from the Honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth Supreme Judicial District, issued upon a judgment of that court adjudging them guilty of contempt in violating a writ of injunction in force in a cause pending on appeal therein. The writs of habeas corpus were issued and such evidence and argument as the parties saw fit to offer have been heard. Their only contention is that the imprisonment is illegal for the alleged reason that no evidence was adduced before the Court of Civil Appeals to sustain the charge preferred.

¶2 On the hearing before this court the evidence offered before the Court of Civil Appeals was reproduced and, in our opinion, it tended to prove every fact essential to support the judgment of conviction. We shall not review or discuss it, for it must be understood that this court is not clothed with appellate power over such judgments, and has neither the right nor the disposition to assume a jurisdiction of that character. Nor shall we undertake at this time to define the extent of this jurisdiction, since the only, reason preferred for its exercise has been shown not to exist. Whether or not the ground stated, if it existed, would sustain the application we need not determine.

¶3 The relators will be remanded to the custody of the sheriff to be held by him in obedience to the order of the Court of Civil Appeals.

/99/tex/405 · .json · Public domain