Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 335
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CAl v. TCE. _-----
-Argument for app6elee.
SuppOSe the Legislature should entirely omit to pass any Act
ituppos referee to this clause of the Constitutiol; sippose, too,
an Act should be passed on the subject of executions in direct
contravention of this protective clause. W ould the court hold
such a law valid in the face of the words: "The rights of nar
"c ned women to their separate property, eal and pa (Art"h
riicread wof tha me, shall be protected by law -
c 13, Sectionr IA, Constitution 1869) Would the court disregard
this provision on the ground that no Act of the eislature
had been passed to bring it into force . Could the
Legislature defeat the plai language of the Organic Law by
omission to act, any more than by acting contrary to it O
this point see 2 Texas, 160, 161; Robison . Baillieel, and the
case therein cited; 3 Cranch, 159, U.S. . Moore. In this
last case, Chief-Justice MJarshall, on the subject of a Constitutional
provision says "That such a provision would be an
· unanswerable argument in favor of the jurisdiction of the
c-Suprem Court in the absence of Congressional legislation,
· ' that no Act of the
thus recognizing the Qrganic Law as in force, an
without legislation. We submit, therefore, tAt n Sctio n
Legislature is necessary to render effectual article 12, Section
14, of the Constitution- If the Act of March 13, 1848, contains
any principle or definition inconsistent with its protection
such principle and definition are repealed by the Constipniw
paeo it follo ws that the hire of
tIown correct in these views, f tht
the horses, in this case at least, was the separate property of te
wife , and as C protected from the claim set up as the horses
As to the second point: t t '
Assuming that we arecorrect in our views on t it
tion discussed, it followS that the defendant could obtain title
to the hire in te mInode pointed t by law only. e
not get it by forced sale under judgment obtained as proposed
n his plea of reconvention, but by the wi f consent only, n
that consent evidenced as provided by law.
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 Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/343/: accessed June 28, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .