The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-04-24
THE COURTS,
SUPREME CoURT

THE COURTS.
SUPREME COURT.
The supreme court being in session
yesterday Chief Justice Willie and
associates Stayton and West being on
the. bench the following cases were
decided:
Dora Willis VS.. Missouri Pacific
railroad company, from Grayson coun-
ty; opinion by Justice Willie. Judg-
ment of lower court affirmed.
William Eickhoff VS.. Thomas A.
T1dwell, ct. al, from Tarrant county:
opinion by Judge Willie. Judgment
OF lower court reversed and cause re-
manded.
Dallas & Wichita railroad company
VS.. Hannah 7. Speaker, ct. al, from
Dallas county; opinion by Justice
Stayton. Judgment of lower court
affirmed.
In Willis VS.. the Missouri Pacific.
Mrs. Willis sued the railroad company
| to recover damages for the negligent
killing of her husband who was at the
time in the service of the company,
operating their line through the Indian
territory into Texas. ItIIwas alleged
that the county, in which deceased
| was killed was without law applica-
| BILE to deceased the plaintiff, or defend-
ant or other person residing beyond its
boundaries; and that only citizens of
the country have any civil rights in
said country, and that to such persons
said country is as one devoid of law.
Among other defenses filed to the
action was a special demurrer. to the
effect that the petition claimed on its
face that the injuries and death oc-
CURED outside of the jurisdiction of
the state of Texas; and that there was
IN the locality of those occurrences no
law giving plaintiff right of action
against the company for causing the
death of her husband. The exception
was sustained by the court, but the
plaintiff failing to amend, the cause
was dismissed. From this action of
the court Mrs. Willis appealed to this
court, assigning as error the ruling by
which the special demurrer was sus-
tanned,
Mrs. Willis having no right of ac-
ton under the laws of the Indian
territory, seeks to maintain and claims
that she can under the laws of Texas
maintain her suit in the courts of this
state. The question involved is as to
the power of state to give hHr laws
an extra territorial effect.
Our statute, says Judge Willie, in
providing as it does that the negligent
killing of an individual shall
constitute cause of action in certain
OF his survivors for damages against
the party committing the homicide is
providing only for cases occurring
rrr1th hi hnr. L..
that an actionable tort which was not
so before by common law. Within
her own jurisdiction the law is
changed by reason Of the statute, but
it remains the same everywhere else,
and the death of the husband through
negligence of railroad company, if
the injury occurred in Ghe Indian ter
ritory, was no more cause of action
after the passage of our stat
ute than itIwas before.
The government exercising author.
ity IN the locality where the act was
committed is the only one to deter
mine and provide whether or not such
an act shall be good ground for suit
in behalf of any one, and to name the
parties in whom the cause of action
shall exist. 1t Is not the mere giving
ds a remedy for a right previously
possessed, but it is the creation of a
right itself in certain parties which be-
fore belonged to no one.
In the Speaker case, in which the
judgment of the lower court is affirm
ed, the jury gave verdict against the
railroad company for 5000 damages
for Injuries sustained on account of
defects in bridge which had been
nctr o6 hxy 70 Thn
suit was brought by the wife and the
mother of Sepcker.
In the E1kof case the question was
that bond was not made payable to
proper party, and that it was not
voluntary. The facts do not sustain
this position. The case says Judge
Willie, is novel one, but aSSimiIateS
itself in some respects to an injunc-
ton proceeding, and the PLAINTIFF be-
low should in no event recover more
the present case. The judgment is
reversed and The cause remanded.
COMMISSIONERS OF APPEALS.
This court met yesterday, full bench
present, and disposed of the following
causes:
Davis VS.. Dixon, from Cooke coun-
OJs OPlAlOA NY u OOSO OO404Oy
ment affirmed.
Peyton ct al. VS.. Leonard. receiver,
from Dallas. Opinion by Judge De-
acknowledgement affirmed.
| CParr ct al. VS.. Connor, administra-
tor, from Lavaca county. Opinion by
| Judge Delaney-a affirmed.
Handley VS.. II & T. G. r. r. Co.
Opinion by Judge Delaney-affirmed.
Houston & Texas Central Railroad
Co. VS.. Leakey; from Grayson county.
Opinion by Judge Watts. Judgment
reversed and cause remanded.
| BumpaS ct al. VS.. Spencer ct al; from
Dallas county. Opinion. by Judge
Watts. Judgment reversed and re-
Western Union Telegraph Co. VS..
Hitson; from Parker county. Opinion
by Judge Watts. Judgment affirmed.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railroad
Co. VS.. Dabney ct al; from Wise
county. Opinion by Judge Watts.
Affirmed.
Texas s. Pacific Railway Co. VS..
McClanahan; from Lamar county.
Opinion by Judge Watts. Affirmed
- Houston & Texas Central Railway
Co. vs. Boozer; from Grayson county.
Opinion by Judge Watts. Reversed
ana remanded.
Strong VS.. Curtis ct al; from Clay
county. Opinion by Judge Watts
Reversed and remanded.
House and wife VS.. Stone, from
Tarrant county; opinion by presiding
Judge Walker. Reversed and re.
! manded.
Aiken VS.. Mcdonald, from Lamar
county. opinion bV presiding Judge
Walker. Judgment affirmed.
. Morrill, VS.. Stell, administrator
: from Lamar county; opinion by pre-
T siding Judge Walker. Affirmed.
> n 81 I. G. Ry. Co. VS.. Hicks, frou
: Dallas county. Opinion by presiding
| Judge Walker. Reversed and re
manded
J Henry vs.. Fay & Co., from Cook
( county; opinion by presiding Judg'
Z Walker. Judgment reversed an,
cause remandrd on award. (Consen
3 case)
: OTHER COURTS.