Original Jurisdiction of the Courts of Civil Appeals to Issue Extraordinary Writs
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SMU Law Review Volume 8 Issue 4 Article 2 1954 Original Jurisdiction of the Courts of Civil Appeals to Issue Extraordinary Writs James R. Norvell Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation James R. Norvell, Original Jurisdiction of the Courts of Civil Appeals to Issue Extraordinary Writs, 8 SW L.J. 389 (1954) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol8/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. EXTRAORDINARY WRITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF CIVIL APPEALS TO ISSUE EXTRAORDINARY WRITS James R. Norvell* U NDER the Texas constitutional system, the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the Courts of Civil Appeals is primarily appellate in nature and such courts are not invested with general superintendence of trial courts.' Nevertheless, by the constitution and statutory enactments, they are granted the authority to issue original writs under certain circumstances. It has been pointed out that the authority and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in this regard is much broader than that of a Court of Civil Appeals,2 and this seems readily apparent from a comparison of the constitutional and statutory provisions relat- ing to the two species of courts.' The constitutional provision *Associate Justice of the Court of Civil Appeals, Fourth Supreme Judicial District, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Law School of St. Mary's University of San Antonio, Texas. For assistance in the preparation of this paper, grateful acknowl- edgment is made to the Briefing Service of the Law School of St. Mary's University, particularly, Messrs. Robert Vale and Joseph Valdez. 1 Milam County Oil Mill Co. v. Bass, 106 Tex. 260, 163 S. W. 577 (1914) ; Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n. v. Kirby, 150 S. W. 2d 123 (Tex. Civ. App. 1941). 2 Adams v. Mitchell, 86 S. W. 2d 884 (Tex. Civ. App.) 1935; Hidalgo County Water Improvement Dist. No. 2 v. Cameron County Water Control and Improvement Dist. No. 5, 250 S. W. 2d 941 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952). 8 The constitutional provision relating to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is contained in Article 5, § 3, of the Constitution and reads as follows: "The Supreme Court and the Justices thereof shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, as may be prescribed by law, and under such regulations as may be prescribed by law, the said courts and the Justices thereof may issue the writs of mandamus, procedendo, certiorari and such other writs, as may be necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. The Legislature may confer original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to issue writs of quo warranto and mandamus in such cases as may be specified, except as against the Governor of the State." Statutory enactments adopted in accordance with the constitutional grant of power are the following: "Article 1733. May issue writs.-The Supreme Court or any Justice thereof, shall have power to issue writs of procedendo, certiorari and all writs of quo warranto or mandamus agreeable to the principles of law regulating such writs, against any district judge, or Court of Civil Appeals or judges thereof, or any officer of the State Government, except the Governor." "Article 1734. May issue mandamus, etc.-Said Court of any judge thereof in vacation may issue the writ of mandamus to compel a judge of the district court SOUTHWESTERN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 8 relating to: the original jurisdiction of the Courts of Civil Appeals is contained in Article 5, § 6, of the Constitution which, after defining the appellate jurisdiction, simply states that such courts "shall have such other jurisdiction, original and appellate as may be prescribed by law." In accordance with this constitutional provision, the Legisla- ture has adopted two articles reading as follows: Article 1823.4 Writs of mandamus, etc.-Said courts and the judges thereof may issue writs of mandamus and all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of said courts. Article 1824. May madamus district courts-Said Courts or any Judge thereof, in vacation, may issue the writ of Mandamus to compel a Judge of the District or County Court to proceed to trial and judg- ment in a cause, returnable as the nature of the case may require.5 It will be seen that the Courts of Civil Appeals are given no authority by the constitution or the statutes to issue the writ of habeas corpus.' Their authority is strictly confined to writs neces- sary to enforce their jurisdiction and writs directing a District or County Court to proceed to judgment in a case. to proceed to trial and judgment in a cause agreeably to the principles and usages of law, returnable to the Supreme Court on or before the first day of the term, or during the session of the same, or before any judge of the said Court as the nature of the case may require." Article 1735 ...relates to the issuance of the writs of mandamus and injunction against public officials. Article 1735-a, . relates to the issuance of mandamus or other writ against officers of political parties. "Article 1737. Habeas corpus, - The Supreme Court or any of the Justices thereof, either in term time or in vacation, may issue writs of habeas corpus in any case where any person is restrained in his liberty by virtue of any order, process or commitment issued by any court or judge on account of the violation of any order, judgment or decree theretofore made, rendered or entered by such court or judge in any civil cause. Said Court or any Justice thereof, either in term time or in vacation, pending the hearing of application for such writ, may admit to bail any person to whom the writ of habeas corpus may be so granted." 4Article References are to VEnNoN's ANrOTATED TEXAS STATUTM. 5 Under the provisions of Article 1735-a, Courts of Civil Appeals, as well as the Supreme Court, are granted the power to issue original writs against officers of a political party. A discussion of this article is however beyond the scope of this paper. 6Wetz v. Thompson, 63 S. W. 1050 (Tex. Civ. App. 1901); Ex parte Hoover, 245 S. W. 2d 557 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952). 1954] EXTRAORDINARY WRITS Despite the broader jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, there is a field of concurrent jurisdiction which it occupies with the Courts of Civil Appeals. If the extraordinary relief sought falls within this area of concurrent jurisdiction, it is generally necessary to apply first to the Court of Civil Appeals having jurisdiction of the case.' While the Supreme Court has no appellate jurisdiction over a case originating in the Court of Civil Appeals,' it may nevertheless entertain an original proceeding designed to secure the same relief refused in an original proceeding in the Court of Civil Appeals9 or prohibit the carrying out of an order of a Court of Civil Appeals rendered in an original proceeding."0 Ordinarily before a Court of Civil Appeals will issue an origi- nal writ it is necessary that either an order of a Court of Civil Appeals be interfered with or an interference threatened." An order or judgment of a trial court becomes in theory an order of the Court of Civil Appeals when the jurisdiction of the latter Court is invoked by appellate proceedings. Consequently, when an order of the trial court is involved, it is generally necessary to perfect an appeal before the Court of Civil Appeals will grant 7 Houtchens v. Mercer, 119 Tex. 244, 27 S. W. 2d 795 (1930) ; 69 A. L. R. 1103. 8 Dallas Railway and Terminal Co. v. Watkins, 126 Tex. 116, 86 S. W. 2d 1081 (1935); Alexander v. Meredith, 137 Tex. 37, 152 S. W. 2d 732 (1941). ) Houtchens v. Mercer, supra; Dallas Railway and Terminal Co., supra; Saenz v. Sanders, 241 S. W. 2d 316 (Tex. Civ. App. 1951), Id. Sup. Ct., 151 Tex. 10, 245 S. W. 2d 483 (1952). 10 Cleveland v. Ward, 116 Tex. 1, 285 S. W. 1063 (1926). 11 Cattlemen's Trust Company v. Willis, 179 S. W. 1115 (Tex. Civ. App. 1915); National Surety Corporation v. Jones, 158 S. W. 2d 112 (Tex. Civ. App. 1941) ; Harney v. Wood, 160 S. W. 2d 315 (Tex. Civ. App. 1942) ; Clack v. Ewing, 196 S. W. 2d 53 (Tex. Civ. App. 1946). Ordinarily the filing of a second suit which may be defeated by a plea of res judicata is not grounds for the issuance of a writ of prohibition, how. ever, repeated filings of lawsuits upon the same cause of action may form a basis for the issuance of a writ. Ferguson v. Ferguson, 189 S. W. 2d 442 (Tex. Civ. App. 1945). As stated in Milam County Oil Mill Co. v. Bass, 106 Tex. 260, 163 S. W. 577 (1914), "The proper test of the question therefore is, not whether the suit (sought to be pro- hibited) recognizes or repudiates the effect of the judgment (of the appellate court), since that does not necessarily involve the jurisdiction of the court, but whether it amounts to an interference with its due enforcement and therefore invades a jurisdic- tion it is forbidden to trench upon." As to Supreme Court, see, Hovey v. Shepherd, 105 Tex. 237, 147 S. W. 224 (1912). 12 Browning-Ferris Machinery Co. v. Thompson, 55 S. W. 2d 168 (Tex. Civ. App.