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: 30
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
30 WELLS V. LITTLEFIELD. [Austin Term,
Opinion of the court.
ex rel. Yeeder v. Collins, 5 Wis., 339; Jared v. Hill, 1 Blackf. (Ind.),
155 and 156; Ex parte Milwaukee R. R. Co., 5 Wall., 825; People
v. Bacon, 18 Mich., 253.
Fisher & Fisher and IW. Ackcr, for respondent, cited: Sec. 3, art.
5, State Constitution 1876; sec. 3, art. 4, Constitution 1845.
On their construction of the powers of the supreme court in
directing the entry of judgment below, as referred to in the opinion,
they cited: R. S., arts. 1048, 1050.
That mandamus is not the remedy to control the exercise of
a discretionary power, they cited: R. S., arts., 1368, 1418; High
on Extraordinary Legal Remedies, sec. 149; Insurance Co. v.
Adams, 9 Pet., 573; Fx parte Railway Co., 101 U. S., 711; Ex parte
Burtis, 103 U. S., 238; Ex parte Loring, 94 U. S., 418; Crawford v.
Addison, 22 How., 174; Ex part Bradstreet, 8 Pet., 589; Ex parte
Many, 14 How., 24; Ex parte Whitney, 13 Pet., 404; State v. Judge
Sixth District, 26 Am. Rep., 115.
WILLIE, CHIEF JUSTICE.- The return of the Hon. W. A. Blackburn,
judge of the seventeenth judicial district, to the alternative
mqandamus heretofore issued in this cause, does not controvert the
jurisdiction of this court as exercised in the issuance of the writ.
Counsel for the respondent have, however, in argument, questioned
that jurisdiction, and to this point we give our first attention.
The jurisdiction exercised in issuing the writ of mandamus is
either original or appellate. High. on Ex. Leg. Rem., § 27.
Under our constitution the supreme court has appellate jurisdicti
on only, and issues the writ of mandamcl us for the purpose solely
pf enforcing that jurisdiction. Const., art. V, sec. 3.
So soon as the jurisdiction attaches under an appeal or writ of
error, this court has full control of the cause, and can make such
orders concerning it as may be necessary to preserve the rights of
the parties and enforce its mandates. This jurisdiction continues
until the case, as made by the appeal or writ of error, is fully determined
by this court and its judgment is completely executed by the
court below. If the judgment below is affirmed, or reversed and
rendered or reformed, this court can see that the party in whose
favor its decision has been given has the benefit of all proceedings
below necessary to enforce its judgment. If remanded for a new
"trial, it retains control until the new trial is allowed in accordance
with its mandate. If reversed and sent down to have some special
judgment rendered by the court below, jurisdiction remains till that
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
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/m1/52/: accessed October 23, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .