TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Butler

Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. J. E. Butler

Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Butler, 116 S.W. 360 (Tex. 1909)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 3, 1909
Docket
No. Application No. 6119.
Judges
Williams
Citations
116 S.W. 360102 Tex. 3221909 Tex. LEXIS 148
Headnotes
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court. A suit brought in the District Court to enjoin a County Court judgment on the ground that the record showed that the jury were not sworn was one which could have been brought in the County Court. The judgment .of the Court of Civil Appeals therein was final, and the Supreme Court could not grant writ of error. (Pp. 322, 323.)
Summary
Application for writ of error to the Court "of Civil Appeals for the Second District, in an appeal from Eastland County. " :

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Williams

Mr. Justice Williams delivered the opinion of the court.

The railroad company instituted this proceeding by presenting tq the district judge its petition for an injunction against the enfofce.ment of a judgment against it in favor of Butler in the- County Dbtift of Eastland County, on the ground that it was void for the reason that, as appeared from the record in the- cause in which it was rendered, the jury on whose verdict it was based were not sworn. The district judge granted a temporary injunction, or restraining order, the exact character of which is immaterial to the present purpose and set the application down for a hearing, and, after the hearing, refused the writ and dissolved the preliminary order. Upon appeal the Court *323 of Civil Appeals entered its judgment vacating the order of dissolution. It is from this action that the present application is presented. "Whether the proceeding was properly commenced before the district judge or not, it is perfectly evident that it could have been brought in the County Court with an application to the county judge for the injunction. The case is therefore one in which the judgment of the •Court of Civil Appeals is final and no writ of error lies to this court.

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1910: 11911: 11912: 11918: 11921: 11932: 11942: 12013: 119102026peak 1910 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Wenatchee Valley Holding Co.14 P.2d 51 (Wash. 1932)
  2. Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co. v. Dyess167 S.W.2d 294 (Tex. App. 1942)
  3. Smith v. Kidd228 S.W. 348 (Tex. App. 1921)
  4. Ramsel v. Miller202 S.W. 1050 (Tex. App. 1918)
  5. Ward v. Powell140 S.W. 1188 (Tex. App. 1911)
  6. Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth v. Episcopal Church422 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. 2013) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth v. Episcopal Church422 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. 2013) · Dissent
  2. Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co. v. Dyess167 S.W.2d 294 (Tex. App. 1942)
  3. State v. Wenatchee Valley Holding Co.14 P.2d 51 (Wash. 1932)
  4. Smith v. Kidd228 S.W. 348 (Tex. App. 1921)
  5. Ramsel v. Miller202 S.W. 1050 (Tex. App. 1918)
  6. Hillsman v. Cline145 S.W. 726 (Tex. App. 1912)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list