Case Name: TEXAS EMPLOYERS' INS. ASS'N v. KIRBY, District Judge, et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1941-06-25
Citations: 152 S.W.2d 1073
Docket Number: No. 15094
Parties: TEXAS EMPLOYERS’ INS. ASS’N v. KIRBY, District Judge, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 152
Pages: 1073–1073

Head Matter:
TEXAS EMPLOYERS’ INS. ASS’N v. KIRBY, District Judge, et al.
No. 15094.
Supreme Court of Texas.
June 25, 1941.
See, also, 150 S.W.2d 123.
Lawther, Cramer, Perry & Johnson, Harry P. Lawther, and Wm. M. Cramer, all of Dallas,-for relator.
No appearance in Supreme Court for respondents.

Opinion:
CRITZ, Justice.
This is a motion to file an original petition for the issuance by this Court of writs of prohibition and injunction. It is filed by Texas Employers' Insurance Association, as relator, against Hon. H. Fountain Kirby, Judge of the Seventy-seventh Judicial District of Texas, Hon. Sam Holland, Judge of the Third Judicial District of Texas, Jesse Sweeten, Sheriff of Henderson County, Texas, Ed Landman and Addie B, Landman, his wife, as respondents. The petition sought to be filed accompanies the motion.
The matter here involved was first presented to the Court of Civil Appeals at Dallas. The opinion of that Court, by Judge Looney, very fully and correctly states the facts and the relief sought. Substantially the same facts are stated .in the petition here sought to be filed, as were stated in the petition filed in the Court of Civil Appeals, and the same relief sought. The Court of Civil Appeals very correctly held that it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in that Court. In the interest of brevity, we refer to and adopt the statement contained in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. 150 S.W.2d 123.
A reading of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals will demonstrate that the relator here seeks to have this Court issue writs of prohibition and injunction in a matter not otherwise before this Court. Furthermore, such writs are not sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing any judgment of this Court, or for the purpose of protecting or enforcing its jurisdiction. It is settled that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to issue the writs of prohibition or injunction in such a case. 24 Tex.Jur., p. 150, § 110; 11 Tex.Jur., p. 183, § 118, Id., p. 185, § 119; Milam County Oil Mill Co. v. Bass, 106 Tex. 260, 163 S.W. 577; City of Laredo v. Martin, 52 Tex. 548; Wells v. Littlefield, 62 Tex. 28; Churchill v. Martin, 65 Tex. 367; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State, 107 Tex. 1, 11, 106 S.W. 326, 327; Curtis v. Moore, 130 Tex. 396, 110 S.W.2d 1146.
The motion to file is overruled.