Case Name: REEVES v. ROSEBOROUGH, Clerk of Court of Civil Appeals, et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-01-07
Citations: 267 S.W. 973
Docket Number: No. 4135
Parties: REEVES v. ROSEBOROUGH, Clerk of Court of Civil Appeals, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 267
Pages: 973–973

Head Matter:
REEVES v. ROSEBOROUGH, Clerk of Court of Civil Appeals, et al.
(No. 4135.)
(Supreme Court of Texas. Austin.
Jan. 7, 1925.)
1. Appeal and error <@=»23 — Court of last reí sort exclusive judge of Its own jurisdiction.
Court of last resort is exclusive judge of its own jurisdiction.
2. Appeal and error &wkey;>23 — Validity of appeal and jurisdiction of appellate court are to be determined by that court.
Generally, validity of an appeal and jurisdiction of appellate court are to be determined by that court.
3. Appeal and error &wkey;>23 — Clerk of Court of Civil Appeals without authority to refuse to forward appellant’s application for writ of error because mandaté had issued.
Clerk of Court of Civil Appeals was without authority to refuse to forward appellant’s application for writ of error addressed to Supreme Court, where he had complied with all requirements of. law and rules of procedure, because mandate had issued under Bev. St. art. 6057; Supreme Court being exclusive judge of its jurisdiction or effect of .issuance of mandate.
Petition for mandamus by John J. Reeves against E. T. Roseborough, Clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals, and others.
Petition dismissed.
I.N. Williams, J. F. Wilkinson, Hiram Brown, and J. A. Ward, all of Mt. Pleasant, for relator.

Opinion:
PIERSON, J.
This is an original proceeding by relator, John J. Reeves, to require respondent, Hon. E. T. Roseborough, derk of the Court of Civil Appeals for the Sixth. Supreme Judicial District of Texas, to forward to this court relator's application for writ of error in the case of John J. Reeves v. State, 258 S. W. 577.
Relator alleges a full compliance with all requirements of law and the rules of procedure in preparing and filing with respondent Roseborough, as clerk of said court, for transmission to this court, his said application for writ of error, which was addressed to this court, but that respondent Rosebor-ough declines to file and forward same to this court for its consideration.
It appears from relator's written argument in support of his motion for leave to file his petition for mandamus, that respondent the clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals declined to file the petition for writ of error upon the ground that mandate had issued under article 6057, R. S.; that being the concluding article of chapter 2, title 98, relating to removal from office of county and certain district officers. The article reads:
"When so decided, unless the judgment be for some cause set aside or suspended, the mandate of the court shall issue- within five days after the judgment of the court is rendered."
Relator complains that respondent Rose-borough has substituted his judgment for that of the Supreme Court as to whether this court has jurisdiction over the case upon relator's application for writ of error.
It is not at all necessary to discuss the question at length. A court of last resort is the exclusive judge of its own jurisdiction, and necessarily must be. It is generally held that the validity of an appeal and the jurisdiction of the appellate court are to be determined by that court. 3 C. J. p. 371, § 128, and cases cited; Dillard v. Wilson (Tex. Civ. App.) 137 S. W. 152. Respondent Roseborough could not determine for this court its jurisdiction over the case or the effect of the issuance of mandate under article 6057. However, in this case, upon leave being granted to relator to file his petition for a writ of mandamus, respondent Rose-borough filed and forwarded to this court relator's petition for writ of error. .While the petition for mandamus is to be dismissed, we have deemed it advisable to write this short opinion on it.
Th,e petition is dismissed.