The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-07-02

in the cases The legislature may have
intended, by implication (but 1t did not
in express terms), to give the supreme
court the power to do that very thing
And the supreme court, as displayed in its
rules, has never attempted in any manner
whatever to exercise any such unbounded
authority And seriously doubt whether
it has an unlimited authority TO make
solemn and binding judgments of our APP
pellate courts TO rest upon such uncertain
and shaky foundations. For instance, sup
pose all OF our appellate courts, on the
last day of the present term, should render
700 judgments Chat is 100 judgments in
each oourD and then adjourn for he term,
that 700 motions for rehe2ring should be
filed in fifteen days thereafter and teen
our twenty-oue appellate Judges snoGld
resign? All the above things are not I'M
possible.
Then. again, suppose 1t the next terms
of said courts we should have twenty one
new appellate judges and they Should
Grant 700 motions for rehearing and en-
tirely change, alter, annul IT set aside
their predecessors 700 judgments liz sald
cases? Would not the courts themselves
and the people want 10 Know srom whence
sprang their authority?
In thu case of McGhee VS.. Romatka (4'
W.R 500 the supreme court does not
hold that motions for rehearing can be
contip led from one term TO the next, pu'
Chief Justice Gaines says in the OPINION
Had the motion been seasonaplY pre-
sented the case would have been diIfereht'
II would have suspended the Judgment,
and unless the court had acted before the
end OF that term it would have carrleu
the matter to this''-the next term tnoW-
ever. the language, SUPRA is obiter uicia,
in that easel. But he further says in ABOVE
case al SW.R 500 that: Tine court
of civil appeals has power over us JuuS
ments at any time during the term at
which they are rendered. and may, WITH
out a motion from any party, reform OF
cot them aside . The judgment
remains in full force and effect, and IL
the court adjourn for the term, without
setting it aside. it becomes a hnality ana
the court loses control over 1t. 1t has no
power to Vacate 1t at a subsequent term,
and any action in relation thereto is
nullitv" The above is undoubtedly me
rule of law in Texas 1t is sound. logical,
and incontrovertible l. Is supported by
one of the ablest. best, most exhaustive
and carefully considered opinions TO be
found in the Texas reports. An opinion
which is tar-reaching, logical and stand
ing as a beacon light to illuminate the
successors of Justice Moore. 1t is the
and displays profound wisdom, flashes
with respondent brilliancy and reflects
great credit on the distinguished jurist.
who wrote SAID opinion
We call attention to the superb reason
ing found on pages 447 454 of 43 Texas in
the case OF Brownsville VS.. Bass, in which
our supreme court held 1T is a universal
rule that no court can alter. vacate or an
null final judgment, regularly entered
in a case of which 1t has final jurisdiction
after the adjournment OF the term at
which such judgment was rendered. Evil
IDENTIFY. therefore. this motion can only be
entertained at this. the third term after
the entry of the judgment sought to be
reformed, upon its being made to appear
that the judgment, or so much OF il as is
complained Of is an absolute nullity, for
want of jurisdiction of the court over the
subject matter in controversy or the par
ties to the suit. or the total absence and
lack of power in the court to render or
make the particular judgment or order
assailed," (p i4Sl This court unques-
tionably has no more authority to reform,
revoke or annul it" fits own judgment)
after the close of the term at which it
was rendered. than has the district or
any other court TO contemn and disre
gard :. For If we may set aside
the judgments of our predecessors, be-
cause in our opinion, etc, -" with
equal proprety may our successors say
that We We're mistaken. and may there
fore revoke our judgment and restore that
of our predecessors" (pp 450-451). "In
discussing the question raised by this mo- |
ton" flor rehearing. TO reform Judgment. |
for mandate and for new trial, etc) I'VE |
have considered IT. 1t will be observed. |
solely with reference to the power or |
jurisdiction OF the court to render tho
Judgment which We are asked to yacate |
or reform. And which we have no hesi- |
fancy In this view OF 1t in holding that
the jurisdiction OF the court is amply suf- |
ficient to support the judgment and that
II can not be questioned In collateral /
proceeding elsewhere or In this court Al
a SUBSEQUENT time to that at which IL was
rendered as nudity" tpp. 453-45i) The |
above is still the rule of law In Texas n
has never been overruled by the supreme
court nor changed by legislative enact |
ment.
OF course ] do not doubt the power ~
the legislature TO pass laws providing for
CONTINUING motions for rehearings. etc.
ION one term 10 the next providing that
JUDGMENTS rendered at one term are mot
final iwhere motions for rehear,ng atc
are MED and not acted on) but are sub
isct 70 be determined at the next term |
that the cases shall remain, pending ne
uhuisposed OF shall be continued by on- |
Grafton Of law" But insist that the ler-
isiature has not yet enacted any such
Inc appellate court can now lin the
same manner az district COURT yacate
a nna se, ASIDE their judgments. grant a
pendingl for further consideration ana
fully. 's gespect-