Court Opinion

ID: 9832554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:59:42.771884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:47.898964
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING.
The appellant contends that the County Court can have no jurisdiction of condemnation cases, by reason of section 16, article 5, of the State Constitution, which provides that said court shall not have jurisdiction of suits for the recovery of land. “Section 8, article 5, vests the jurisdiction of all suits for the trial of title to land in the District Courts, and we think the reference to suits for the recovery of land in section 16 meant suits for the trial of title to land. The question was before the Court of Appeals, and it held that the statute giving the County Court jurisdiction over condemnation cases was not unconstitutional, for reasons expressed in the opinion found in Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Tacquard (3 Willson, Civ. Cas. Ct. App., sec. 141). The question does not appear to have been directly raised and decided in the Supreme Court, but that court has made rulings which "are entirely inconsistent with the correctness of the position assumed by appellant. (See Railway v. Poindexter, 70 Texas, 98, 7 S. W. Rep., 316; Ackerman v. Huff, 71 Texas, 317, 9 S. W. Rep., 236; Galveston Wharf Co. v. Railway Co., 72 Texas, 454, 10 S. W. Rep., 537.) The question being a constitutional one, and plainly fundamental, it could not have *62been overlooked in the above and other cases which involved it. We can not consent to certify to the Supreme Court a question thus practically settled, and one with regard to which no member of this court entertains any doubt.
The other questions referred to in the motion for rehearing are, we believe, correctly disposed of by the opinion filed.
The motion is overruled.

Overruled.

Application for writ of error dismissed by the Supreme Court for want of jurisdiction.