Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1883, the entire Tyler term, 1883, and the early part of the Galveston term, 1884. Volume 60. Page: 586

                                
586                   EnWIN v. BLANKS.          [Galv. Term,
Opinion of the court.
district courts accordingly, they effectually, as far as was in their
power so to do, grant the right to hear and determine such suits to
the district and not to the county courts.
Not so with article 4831 of the same code, which provides that
the officer levying the writ upon the property in dispute shall return
it, together with the affidavit and claim bond, into the county
court, if the value of the property seized is more than $200 and does
not exceed $500. If this is to be regarded as an attempt to enact
a law in accordance with the constitution, fixing the jurisdiction of
the county court in such matters, then, according to the construction
we have given that instrument, the law is in conflict with it and
void. If regarded as an attempt under the twenty-second section
of the fifth article to increase the jurisdiction of the county court
beyond the limit placed upon it by organic law, it cannot be sustained
because there is no provision making a corresponding change
in the jurisdiction of the district courts.
We do not thitk that the twenty-second section of the fifth
article of the constitution intended that the mere statutory grant to
the county courts of a power beyond that which they were authorized
under the constitution to exercise was to be construed as a lawful
increase of the jurisdiction of such courts. If so, no matter
what jurisdiction might be given by the legislature to these courts,
the statute would be upheld. If they were authorized to try land
suits, or indictments for felonies, or controversies involving property
without limit as to value, we could not, under such construction of
that section, say that the grant of power was not lawfully given,
though directly contrary to the state constitution. It was doubtless
intended that the jurisdiction should be prescribed for the county
court, and provision should be made at the same time giving to the
district court the power which had been withdrawn from the county
courts, or depriving the district court of those which had been conferred
upon the latter.
We are of opinion that the eighth section of the fifth article of
the constitution conferred upon district courts jurisdiction of causes
like the present, and that it was thereby excepted out of the jurisdiction
granted to county courts in the sixteenth section of the same
article. We are further of opinion that arts. 1117 and 1164 of the
Revised Statutes are in accordance with a true construction of these
sections of the constitution, and that so much of art. 4831, Revised
Statutes, as attempts to confer such jurisdiction upon the county
courts in cases where the property seized under attachment or other
similar suits is of the value of $500, is inoperative and void. Hence