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: 34
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
34 WELLS v. LITTLEFIELD. [Austin Term,
Opinion of the court.
then this court will be without power to enforce its judgments in
If the district court disobeys our mandate and the injured party
appeals, and we again decide in his favor, that court may again disobey,
and by continuing this course deprive us of all power to right
any wrong which may be committed below. The position of the
two courts will be changed. The district court will become the
tribunal of last resort, and this court rendered subordinate to it in
Upon an examination of the authorities cited by appellant, we
find but one in which the mandamus claimed was asked in a case
where the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court had attached,
and the views of the supreme court of the United States in that
case are entirely in accord with those expressed in this opinion. See
EZ part R'y Co., 101 U. S., 711.
The following authorities, among many others, fully sustain the
views herein announced, and warrant our action in issuing the present
mandamus: Johnston v. Glasscock, 2 Ala., 522; Veeder v. Collins,
5 Wis., 339; Ex part lilwaukee R. R. Co., 5 Wall., 825; People
v. Bacon, 18 Mich., 247; Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet., 491;
Lovelace v. Taylor, 6 Rob. (La.), 92; McGregor v. Buell, 1 Keyes,
151; Hurck v. Erskine, 50 Mo., 118.
We may add that we cheerfully acquit the distinguished district
judge to whom the mandamus was directed of any intentional disobedience
to the mandate of this court. Iis well known high character
and enviable reputation are sufficient without reference to the
statements contained in his return to assure us that he has failed
to enter our orders as directed, solely from a misunderstanding of
their scope and extent.
A peremptory mandamus will issue immediately commanding
that the orders contained in the alternative writ heretofore granted
be observed and obeyed on or before the 20th day of the present
[Opinion delivered June 13, 1884.]
Justice WEST declined to take part in the decision of this motion.
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/m1/56/: accessed December 14, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .