Case ID: sw2d_33/html/1066-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FORREST v. MOORE et al.
    No. 17862.
    Supreme Court of Texas.
    Jan. 7, 1931.
    . (Leonard Brown, Charles J. Matthews, and George Powell, all of San Antonio, for plaintiff in error.
    Thomson, Dilworth & Marshall, of San Antonio, fox defendants in error.
   PER CURIAM.

This suit is pending before us on application for writ of error. The application shows that the ease is an original suit filed in the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth District, asking that court for a writ of prohibition against the plaintiff in error jn relation to a certain suit which he filed in the district court. Upon hearing the Court of Civil Appeals directed the issuance of the writ of prohibition. The application for writ of error is made by the plaintiff in error because of that action by the Court of Civil Appeals.

The law is well settled that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction by writ of error over the subject-matter of this. suit. This court has appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of the Court of Civil Appeals only in cases where the latter exercise appellate jurisdiction as distinguished from original jurisdiction. It has no power to grant a writ of error where a Court of Civil Appeals in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, as in this ease, has issued a writ of prohibition. The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals in original actions of this character is final, in so far as the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is concerned. Schintz v. Morris, 89 Tex. 648, 35 S. W. 1041; City of Houston v. City of Palestine, 114 Tex. 306, 267 S. W. 663; Edgar Scurry et al. v. J. F. Friberg et al. (Tex. Sup.) 32 S.W.(2d) 637, recently decided. The petition for writ of error is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.