Case Name: Nash and Mabbit v. The Republic
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1843-06
Citations: 1 Dallam 631
Docket Number: No. XXXIII
Parties: Nash and Mabbit v. The Republic.
Judges: 
Reporter: A Digest of the Laws of Texas:  containing a full and complete compilation of the land laws; together with opinions of the Supreme court [1840-1844]
Volume: 1
Pages: 631–640

Head Matter:
No. XXXIII.
Nash and Mabbit v. The Republic.
(See .)
Appeal from San Augustine County.
.—Nash and Mabbit v. Republic, p. 631.
As a general rule appellate courts only have appellate jurisdiction and powers incident thereto. Bailey v. Haddy, Dal., 376; Republic v. Laughlin, Dal., 412; Dewees v. Hudgeons, 1 T., 192; Chambers v. Hodges, 3 T., 517; Burke v. Mathews, 37 T., 73; City of Brownsville v. Basse, 43 T., 440: Bennett v. Waddell, 54 T., 273; Wells v. Marshall, 62 T., 28; Darnell v. Lyon, 85 T., 455. It is within the power of appellate courts to devise means to enforce their jurisdiction and to adopt rules and mode of appeal when the statute is deficient. Wheeler v. State, 8 T., 228; Teas v. Robinson, 11 T., 774; St. Clair v. Hotchkiss, 28 T., 474; Simmons v. Fisher, 46 T., 126, 131; Vance v. State, 34 T. Cr., 395, 399.

Opinion:
HEMPHILL, Chief Justice.
—In this case the defendants, being guilty of an affray, were ordered by the court to pay fines respectively and to remain in custody until payment was made. After the entry of the judgment, motions' were made by the defendants separately for the arrest thereof; and on considerations of the motions, judgment against Nash was arrested; but the court, regarding the grounds set forth in the motion made by the defendant Mabbit as novel and difficult, made no decision thereon, but reserved them for the discretion and consideration of the Supreme Court. Were it competent for this tribunal to entertain jurisdiction of the points of law involved in this case, we might discuss the propriety or legality of entertaining a motion in arrest of judgment after it has once been rendered by the court; but the questions reserved for our deliberation not having been decided below, we are without jurisdiction and can not properly consider any of the matters embraced in the record.
The Constitution having declared that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall be appellate only, we are limited to the review of the adjudications of inferior courts; and until their decisions are made, no subject matter arises on which the revisory power of this court can be exerted. See the case of McLaughlin v. The Republic, 1841. It is therefore ordered that the case be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Dismissed.