Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 28
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
28 WELLS v. LITTLEFIELD. [Austin Term,
which the Kennedy certificate was originally located. She accordingly
did make such a deed to the parties holding her obligation in
this respect. The decision in this case rests upon that agreement,
it being held that a conveyance of all her claim, right and title to
the land included the claim which she set up to it under the Kennedy
certificate and location.
There was no such feature in the Smyth v. Veal case, and hence
it differs entirely from the present, and is in no view of the matter
authority for any change in the opinion heretofore rendered. The
motion is overruled.
[Opinion delivered June 10, 1884.]
Associate Justice WEST did not sit in this case.
MARSHALL WELLS V. GEO. W. LITTLEFIELD.
(Motion No. 81.)
1. JURISDICTION - MANDAMUS.-The writ of mandamus can be issued by the
supreme court only for the purpose of enforcing its appellate jurisdiction.
2. JURISDICTION.-When the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court attaches,
either by appeal or writ of error, it continues until the case as made
on appeal or error is fully determined, and until the judgment of the supreme
court is completely executed by the court below; and until then
it may enforce that judgment by mandamns.
3. STATUTE CONSTRUED.--Article 1048 of the Revised Statutes construed, and
the conclusion announced that the supreme court may so reverse and remand
a cause as to restrict the power of the district court to a new trial on
such specified issues in the case as are not determined by the opinion.
Citing Chambers v. Hodges, 3 Tex., 517, and other cases.
4. JUDGMENT- MANDATE.- When a cause is reversed and remanded, the district
judge should, to ascertain what issues are involved in the new trial,
look to the opinion which accompanies the mandate, as well as to the mandate.
When, therefore, the opinion directs the district judge to render judgment
against a party to a cause which the supreme court has considered on
appeal, no new trial can be had on issues already made, on any facts existing
before the date of the former trial.
5. EVIDENCE.- On the trial of a suit by sequestration, the replevin bond is not
properly evidence before a jury. When, in such a suit, the defendant recovers,
and the plaintiff has replevied, the bond is looked to by the presiding
judge to ascertain whether the statutory judgment shall be rendered against
the sureties on it.
6, APPEAL- MANDAMUS.--When a district judge fails to obey the mandate of
the supreme court in entering judgment in a cause which has been remanded,
the remedy of the injured party is by mandamus and not appeal.
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/50/: accessed June 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .