Case ID: shan-cas_1/html/0607-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Freeman, I.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. R. S. WALKER v. ISAAC HOPKINS ET AL.
    Jackson,
    September Term, 1876.
    JURISDICTION. Over certain civil districts cannot be affected by county court changing districts, when.
    Where, by statute, jurisdiction is given a court over certain civil districts of a county by their then known number, after which one of these districts is included in the territory of a new county organized, whereupon the county court of the old county malves a new district out of fractions of other districts left within its territorial limits, a portion of which belonged originally to the jurisdiction so conferred upon the court, and a portion not, which newly created district is numbered the same as the district cut off and included in the new county, the substituted district, except the portion of its territory originally in such jurisdiction, is not within the jurisdiction of such court. Question reserved as to effect on jurisdiction by bona fide change of the lines of civil districts which remain substantially intact.
    Construed: Acts 1868-69, ch. 22, see. 12; 1870-71, ch. 24, see. 1; 1871, ch. 149, see. 1. See also Acts 1889, ch. 90, sec. 2; Shannon’s Code, sec. 161.
   Freeman, I.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a bill filed to enforce mechanic’s lien by sale of • land on which improvements had been made by complainant; a plea was put in denying the jurisdiction of the chancery court at Humboldt.

The facts as agreed on are, that by the statutes [acts 1868-69, ch. 22, sec. 12;, 1870-71, ch. 24, sec. 1; 1871, ch. 149, sec. 1; see also 1889, ch. 90, sec. 2; Shannon’s Code, sec. 161] creating courts at Humboldt, jurisdiction is given over certain districts therein named by their then known number, among' others District No. 4, of Gibson county; subsequently the county of Crockett was organized, and said District No. 4 was included in the territory of the new county. By the organization of this new county fractions of then District No. 16, No. 3, and No. 5 were left in Gibson county. Thereupon the county court proceeded to make a new district out of these fractions, a portion of which belonged to the original jurisdiction of Humboldt, and a portion not. None of the defendants, however, lived in the original territory assigned to the jurisdiction of the Humboldt courts, nor was the land so situated.

The new district created was called District No. 4, and is assumed to- have taken the place of old District No. 4, cut off and given to Crockett. It is necessary to hold that this substituted District; No. 4 is within the jurisdiction of Humboldt court in order to sustain this bill. The chancellor held it was not, and we affirm his decision. Whatever might be the effect of a bona fide change of the lines of a civil district, the district itself remaining intact substantially, on the question of jurisdiction it is clear that the county court could not confer jurisdiction over territory by organizing a new district and calling it No. 4. That is what has been done in this case.

The Humboldt court, beyond question, had no jurisdiction of the case, and the decree of the chancellor is affirmed with costs.