Case ID: tex_100/html/0510-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WILLIAMS, Associate Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

A. M. Long v. A. L. Green & Company et al.
    No. 1684.
    Decided April 17, 1907.
    1. —Jurisdiction of Supreme Court.
    A suit for $1,000 for penalties on breach of a liquor dealer’s bond, though brought in the District Court, was also within the jurisdiction of the County Court; the Supreme Court has no authority to grant writ of error therein, and having inadvertently done so will dismiss the writ. (P. 511.)
    2. —Liquor Dealeris Bond—Penalty—Adoption of Prohibition.
    The Supreme Court does not, it seems, approve the ruling herein on appeal, that the adoption of prohibition under the local option law takes away the right to recover penalties for a previous breach of the bond of a liquor dealer within the same territory. (P. 511.)
    
      Error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third District, in an appeal from Franklin County.
    Long, who had sued Green and others for penalties, and been denied a recove^, appealed, and, on affirmance, obtained writ of error.
    
      R. T. Wilkinson, for plaintiff in error.
   WILLIAMS, Associate Justice.

Plaintiff in error sued defendants in error, the principal and sureties on a liquor dealer’s bond, to recover for two alleged breaches of the bond, the amount claimed being $1,000. The cause was decided in favor of the defendants by the District Court and Court of Civil Appeals on the ground that, after the occurrence of the alleged breaches of the bond, and the institution of this action, the local option law, prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors, had been put in force in the county where the breaches had occurred, which was held to have had the effect of repealing the statute giving right of action for recovery of penalties for prior breaches of the liquor dealer’s bond in that county, and of abating the action.

Hot agreeing with this view of the case, we granted this writ of error, without noticing that, while the action was brought in the District Court, the amount sued for was also within the jurisdiction of the County Court. Such being the case, this court is without jurisdiction, and the writ of error must be dismissed. (Rev. Stats., arts. 1155, 996, 940.)

Dismissed.