Case ID: sw_171/html/1125-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BROWN, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HUNT et al. v. JOHNSON et al.
    (No. 2380.)
    (Supreme Court of Texas.
    Dec. 23, 1914.)
    1. Action (§ 50) — Joindee.
    Persons having no common or joint interest in property damaged by a nuisance may not unite in a suit for damages therefor.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Action, Cent. Dig. §§ 511-547; Dec. Dig. § 50.]
    2. Appeal and Ebbok (§ 61) — Jurisdiction —Amount in Conteoveest.
    The improper uniting of two separate causes does not give the Supreme Court jurisdiction on writ of error, where it has no jurisdiction of either case.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 276-292; Dec. Dig. § 61.]
    3. Courts (§ 24) — Jurisdiction—Want of J urisdictio n — Waiver .
    Want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter cannot be waived by the parties nor disregarded by the court.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 76-78; Dec. Dig. § 24.]
    Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fifth Supreme Judicial District.
    Action by S. R. Johnson and another against Hugh Hunt and another. There was a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (141 S. W. 1060), affirming a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error.
    Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
    Stephens & Miller, of Ft. Worth, and W. Poindexter and S. C. Padelford, both of Cle-burne, for plaintiffs in error. Phillips & Bledsoe and F. E. Johnson, all of Cleburne, for defendants in error.
    
      
      Ror other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   BROWN, C.

J. Hugh Hunt and Winfield Scott erected a gin in the city of Cleburne, near to the residences of S. B. Johnson and B. J. Copeland, who resided on separate lots; neither being interested in the property of the other. It was claimed in the petition that Hunt and Scott so located .their gin house, and so operated the gin as to cause the property of Johnson and Copeland each to deteriorate in value the sum of $750 each. It is not claimed that the plaintiffs are joint owners of the property injured, nor that either was interested in the damages sought to be recovered for injury done to the property of the other. The plaintiffs in error made their objection to the joinder of the actions in tlie district court, but tbey make no objection bere.

Parties cannot join in an action to recover separate and distinct parcels of land or damages thereto in which they have no common or joint interest, and the objection of the defendants should have been sustained by the district court. Curry v. York, 3 Tex. 359; Allen v. Road, 66 Tex. 21, 17 S. W. 117. In the case last cited the court said:

“In view of the disposition that will be made of the case, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the evidence to support the claims of Mrs. Thompson, Mrs. Jeífus, and R. N. Read, under the statutes of limitation. As each of the plaintiffs claim separate parts of the league of land in controversy, the action by them all is irregular, and had objections been made, at proper time, and in proper manner, to the maintenance of this joint action, they should have been sustained; but this was not done, and as this relates to the procedure, and not to the rights, of the several parties, the objection cannot be made in this court.”

If each plaintiff had instituted a separate suit in the county court or in the district court, this court would have no jurisdiction of either case. The uniting of two separate cases does not constitute one case, and, as this court has no jurisdiction of either ease, it cannot have jurisdiction of two, when improperly joined. Upon'the face of the proceeding, the question of jurisdiction of the subject-matter arises without objection by either party.

Such want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter cannot be waived by the parties nor disregarded by this court.

It follows that this cause must be dismiss■ed for want of jurisdiction.