The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-01-27
COURT DECISIONS
,,,,xs Of Opinions Handed Down
g'Vp' :, thc Latest Sitting
ENTERED BY THE SUPREME COURT
,obp.on vs.. County judge
Par'e" .ou County Dismissed.
manage suit Reversed.

r.vos January 25.-Following
Ausun' ~ the opinions delivered by
.unreme court today:
,psEYE JOHNSON. recorder Sro Oh 'n no, my y
hn,i.sston. VS.. S. s. HANSCol' coui.'y
o. , ua' TT AL; suit by johnson TO recover
,au cs,veston county certain oiiicers iees'
n' Calyestou county, flrst inst
HON so,a,s ~" for want of jurisdiction
~ u.s. :. former day OF this term we held IN
w H., opinion that this case might have
W. sought in the county court; and that'
...,ore the decision of the court OIL clvii
s,s was final and no writ OF error lay
This is the general rule, 10 winch
tlr'o. .hore are some exceptions tR. >.
we've, aoe The question OF jurisdiction
lN'e al,udeI to in the petition FOR q
~ ~. r,,or and therefore we disposed OF
onnIication under the general RUE
49,. having our attention directed 10
w., ,ba, the case might possibly come
iasr of the exceptions laid down in the
w. W. , motion for rehearing was filed,
nn,sh n was insisted that the court was
..nor in no, taking jurisdiction OF tue
,.s,,on for The reason that Doth the
,,a., of n statute and the revenue laws
~ ~ STATE were involved in the determln-
~ ~ tho case. We granted the motion
rebearing. and being OF the opinion
a, there was error in The ruilhs OIL Inc
.rrt NJ civil appeals upon the main Iues-
m also granted the writ.
Having now to the best of our ABILITY
.mrely considered the Jurisllctional
os,ions presented, We are OF tue opinion
N our first ruling was correct ana tn"t
s.re without jurisdiction 20 hear ana
,tunjne the case. We have not at any
mo been inclined to recede from our opih-
tormerly expressed. that this action
isht have been brought III the county
burt. and we now think that It involves
ti,her the validity of statue, nor the
yeuue laws of the State.
1. II the construction OF the seventeenth
ction Of the charter Of the city OF Cal
ston claimed by the defendant in erio or.
bd adopted by the court of civil appeals,
correct there Is question as to its
tnstitutionality. But we are OF the opiE-
n that this construction is not correct
re think the provisions of the section in
,estion show that it was not the lesisla-
80 intent to blend the jurisdiction OF a
,stice of the peace under the State laws
uder the city ordinances. and to organize
no court under the municipal government
enforce not only the municipal ordi-
anees but also such State laws as could
enforced by justice of the peace. AS
bis was not the legislative intent, we need
Dt inquire whether or not such lcgisla-
on is permitted under the constitution.
is one thing 10 blend two distinct func-
ons in one office, and another to prescribe
bat person who shall hold one office
hall by virtue of that office exercise the
Dctions Of another Under the section
the city charter in question the powers
nd duties Of the recorder, simply as such.
ere Just as distinct from his powers and
rtes when acting as justice of the peace.
II such powers and duties had been OK
rcised by two different persons.
Such being. In our opinion. the proper
obstruction of the charter, we do not I'M
trsiand that any question is raised as to
validity. Without giving the provision
question false construction, no question
TO Its constitutionality is raised. There
ire we can not entertain jurisdiction OF
his case upon the ground that the validity
statute Is involved
Nor in our opinion docs the case in =
olive the revenue laws Of the State. The
rrpose Of the exception in article 996.
eyised Statutes. which allows a writ of
rror 10 this court from the decision of the
ourt OF civil appeals in case the revenue
AVS OF the State are involved when under
fe general rule such writ would not he
t'mitted, was TO give this court power in
II such cases to eonstrue the laws which
ere primarily intended to produce rev.
nues from which the government is to
supported. Dismissed for want of juris-
iction.
Opinion by Gaines, c. ].
Ellie DULANEY EFT AL VS.. GEORGE
WALSH e. co. EFT AL, from Nolan
county, Second district suit to subject
.he proceeds of life insurance policy to
me payment OF the debts of the insured
Affirmed.
~ j. Dulaney died In 1890. having made
Us VIII, In which three of the applicants
ere nominated as executors. Subsequent
.ne VIII was duly probated and the exec
o's qualified. The will bequeathed to
TsMtor wife, Belle Dulaney, and his
Huwafd Duianey, policy OF insurance
ms nle ioT $4,000, and devised to them
~ ,s az MS separate estate. On Decembe,
~, 'he administration was transferred
., me district court on account of the dis
rrn OF the county judge. On
u,a,, ~ 1874, the defendants in this ap-
M s'', az creditors. filed a motion IN
,s 1e'Wt court to require the executors
snt wy insurance money TO the pay
In VI Tue deols of the estate. The mo-
II, a, contested by the executors, az
~ az ny the widow and son of the Tesla
al