The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-09-14

ferred Jurisdiction to transact all busl.
ness appertaining 10 the estates OF
deceased persons and to settle, parti-
ton and distribute The same. me
district courts under that constitution
did not have i'll matters OF prooote
only such powers as were conferred
bv statute, as had such courts
under the constitution OF !o4o,
but took their jurisdiction from
and under the constitution.
The act of Aug. 15, 1870, did not, In
many respects, contain directions as
TO mode OF procedure so full ana con-
plete as did the act OF March, 1913,
with its amendments, nor as does the
law now in force" The court in that
connection proceeded to sustain the
validity of an order of said court,
made in case for which the law hau
provided no proc dure. Pelham Vs.
Murray, Ga Tex, 476. In Green w.
Hugely, % Tex, $50, the court consid-
cred the construction of the powers
conferred on the probate courts by
statute which, after comforting pro-
bate jurisdiction, concluded with the
clause, (which powers shall be eXer-
cised in the manner prescribed by
law" There was no manner pre-
scribed by law for opening an admin
ministration on he estate of person
who died out OF this state, but left an
estate here 1t was held that the
grant of probate jurisdiction was gen.
eral aud included the authority to
open such an administration, even
though no procedure was provided by
law for such cases. To the same et-
feet is the decision in the case OF Neal
vs.. Bartleson, 65 Tex, 473. 1t would
seem from these decisions, and on
principle, that where jurisdiction is
conferred in general terms and not
merely in such cases as may be pro-
vided by law, but, coupled with the
provision that this general jurisdic-
ton is to be exercised under such reg
ulations as may be prescribed by law,
the clause comforting such general
Jurisdiction is Imperative whenever
there is any legally recognized method
of procedure in force under common
law or statute through which such
jurisdiction may be exercised, The
words "may be prescribed by law"
do not necessarily refer to future time
(Anderson's Law Dictionary, PIP. 666),
nor do they necessarily refer to stauu-
tory law. The common law adopted
by statute has as much force
in the absence of statute
as statute would have.
In this state there exist we'll estab.
lished modes of procedure by petit
tion and answer, etc., by which the
Jurisdiction of a district court can be
invoked into action in any particular
case which comes within the subject
matter over which the court is given
jurisdiction. AS the Legislature has
not seen proper to enact any excep-
tions to the jurisdiction of the district
courts as conferred by the constitu
ton, hold the provision in question
comforting jurisdiction to be self oper-
alive and without exception to the
extent of the power which is conferred.
The next question is: What is the
extent of the power thus conferred
Does it apply to such a case as we
have under confederation? At the
threshold If This inquiry, the objec
I ton made by the defendants to the
Jurisdiction of the court to interfere
with the attempt to exercise politi-
cal function by body organized to
exercise such powers, although acting
outside OF it's Jurisdiction, must be
, considered. If this question could be
, determined by reference to the cases
decided by the courts of other states,
. and followed by the lextWriters with
out reference TO the particular provi.
, sions OF the constitution and laws OF
Texas which affect the question, it
a would be of easy solution, for the
r weight of authority elsewhere GER
, tainly is that supervisory jurisdiction
over a court, when conferred by the
constitution or laws, extends only to
E the judicial acis of an inferior court
I ana not to the exercise by such inte'
rior courts of political, Legislative or
ministerial functions deVolving on
, them. In every instance, however, in
which this rule has been laid down
in so far as 1 have been able to investi.
. gate the subject, the inferior court re-
terred to was real judicial tribunal
created and organized to try judicial
f cases and questions between litigal ing
, parties, upon which had been also i'm
. posed the exercise of certain legisla.
tive, political and ministerial duties
In such cases, some scope was given
for the exercise of the supervisory jur.
, isdiction over the Judicial acts OF such
q inferior courts. Such is not the case
in Texas. The judiciary allicle sets
. out to distribute the judicial power
q among various other courts, not in
q Guiding a county commissioners court
' and attempts by enumeration to con-
: fer all the judicial power of the state
= on certain named courts, and after
/ enumerating and assigning to the va
! rious courts, other than county C m
q missioners courts, about all the cases
q in which judicial power may be ex'
! ercised, the grant of jurisdiction to
: district courts closes with genera
3 clause couferring jurisdiction on dis
trict courts in all cases not otherwise
i, provided for. Furthermore, when we
q come to examine as to the powers f 6
r commissioners court, as provided by
+ the constitution, we fild that it ii
i limited by the constitution to the ex
q ercise of legislative, political and min
n isterial powers The constitution
}. after requiring the election of county
O commissioners, provides as follows
v "The county commissioners, so chosen
with the county judge az presiding
Il officer, shall compose the county com