Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-07-26
THE JUDICIARY.
AMENDMENT TO THE ARTICLE
OF THE CONSTITUTION
Relating to It-Uniformfty of judicial De.
cision of Vital Importance to
the Comm onwealth.

Editor Gazette.
That uniformity of Judicial decision is of
vital Importance to the commonwealth must
be conceded by every man who will thought
fully consider the subject. Statutory en-
actmeuts constitute but Ii small proportion
of the body of our laws. To ascertain the
great mass of our laws we must consult the
decisions of our courts of last resort. With
out claiming legislative power for these
tribunals, every lawyer knows that IN seek
ing to know what the law is in large ma
iority of cases we look to their decisions.
No profit could at this time be derived from
the discussion of the question whether 1t is
practicable to establish code so enlarged
in its scope as to furnish 4 rule of action for
every case that may arise. Such an expert
ment is not now proposed
That there exists to-day in Texas diver
sity of decision in respect to many matters,
will be paipable to anyone who will take
the trouble to examine the reported cases.
3 EagRFefS effect there is a cause, though
not always easily discoyerable. The cause
in the matter under consideration happily
is not difficult to ascertain. 4 brief exam
nation of the judicial system that we now
have will serve to make the proposition
just announced manifest. By the cOnstitu-
tIon of 1876, under which we are now liv-
ing, it was ordained that judicial power in
the last resort should be vested IN the Su-
prene court and in the court of appeals.
Upon the former was conferred appellate
jurisdiction of all civil causes of which the
district courts were given original jurlsdlc-
ton: upon the court of appeals was con-
ferred appellate jurisdiction of all civil and
criminal causes of which the county courts
were given original or appellate Jurlsdic-
ton. with a few exceptions not here I'M
portant to mention, and of all criminal
causes of which the district courts We're
given original Jurisdiction. Without sccu-
rately defining the jurisdiction of the dis
trict and county courts, it may be observed
that, while with the exception OF suits Tor
the trial of title to land and for the enforce
ment of liens thereon, suits for divorce,
suits in behalf of the state to recover PEN
alties. forfeitures and escheats, suits TO re-
cover damages for SANDER or defamation of
character, of all of which the district
courts have exclusive cognizance, the only
element that distinguishes the jurisdiction
of the county court from that of the
district court in civil matters is the value
or amount of the thing IN controversy.
Hence it is that the same questions may
and often do arise in cases cognizable by the
county court that are found in cases within
the jurisdiction of the district court. How
ever, when a case is decided by the county
court an appeal lies to the court OF appeals,
while when case is decided by the district
court 1t is appealable TO the supreme court.
Let it be understood that the supreme court
and court of appeals are of coordinate
Jurisdiction: that is, that neither is empow-
cred to revise or review any decision of the
other, but the decisions of each are, within
its sphere, final and conclusive Suppose
that Brown has a suit involving 1890 in the
county court, and that he RECEIVERS a Iudg-
ment for the amount of his demand and
that his adversary appeals to the court of
appeals, and that there the judgment of the
county court is sustained. Then suppose
that Thompson has q suit involving the
sum of $1,000 in the district court, and EN-
bracing the identical question that Browns
case does. and that upon the trial Thompson
| il defeated, and that he appeals to the SD
preme court and thSt the Judgment Of the