From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bond v. Carter

Supreme Court of Texas
Mar 26, 1903
96 Tex. 359 (Tex. 1903)

Summary

holding a national bank has no power to bind itself that a draft drawn on its customer will be paid, and when sued on such a contract, it can plead ultra vires

Summary of this case from Northwestern Serv. v. Si-Tanka Huron

Opinion

No. 1061.

Decided March 26, 1903.

Jurisdiction of Court of Civil Appeals — Transfer of Causes.

The Constitution does not limit the jurisdiction of courts of civil appeals to cases arising in their respective districts; under art. 5, sec. 6, they are given such other jurisdiction as may be prescribed by law, and under this the law for transfer of causes from the court of one supreme judicial district to that of another is constitutional.

Motion to annul an order transferring this cause from the Fifth to the Fourth Supreme Judicial District.

Vaughan Works and A.P. McKinnon, attorneys for appellee, for motion.


This is a motion to annul an order of this court entered on the 19th day of January, 1903, which directed a transfer of this case from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth Supreme Judicial District to that of the Fourth Supreme Judicial District. The case, together with others, was ordered to be transferred in pursuance of the act of the Legislature of April 19, 1895, which for the purpose of equalizing the labors of the courts of civil appeals and expediting the dispatch of business in such courts provided that this court shall make once each year at least an order transferring cases from one of such courts to another. The ground of the motion is that the act is not warranted by the Constitution. The argument is, that the amended article of the Constitution which created the courts of civil appeals limited their jurisdiction to cases arising in their respective districts. The language relied upon to support the position is found in section 6 of article 5 of the Constitution as amended September 22, 1891, and reads as follows: "Said courts of civil appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of their respective districts, which shall extend to all civil cases of which the district court or county courts have original or appellate jurisdiction, under such restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by law." Counsel seem to have lost sight of another clause found further on in the same section, which is as follows: "Said courts shall have such other jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law." Laws 1891, p. 199; Axtell's Constitution of Texas, p. 135. We think this broad and comprehensive provision amply sufficient to authorize the act in question. The failure of counsel to refer to this clause in the section was probably due to the fact that it was omitted, presumably by inadvertence, from the copy of the amendment as found in the Constitution printed with the Revised Statutes of 1895.

The motion is overruled.

Overruled.


Summaries of

Bond v. Carter

Supreme Court of Texas
Mar 26, 1903
96 Tex. 359 (Tex. 1903)

holding a national bank has no power to bind itself that a draft drawn on its customer will be paid, and when sued on such a contract, it can plead ultra vires

Summary of this case from Northwestern Serv. v. Si-Tanka Huron

In First National Bank v. American National Bank, 173 Mo. 153, 72 S.W. 1059, 1060, it was held: "When a national bank enters into a contract which is beyond its powers, it cannot be estopped from pleading ultra vires by the performance of the contract by the other party."

Summary of this case from Birdsell Mfg. Co. v. Anderson

In Bond, however, we held that the "other jurisdiction... as may be prescribed by law" clause in Article V, § 6(a) was a sufficient basis for conferring jurisdiction on a court that otherwise would lack it, which in turn required upholding the constitutionality of the docket-equalization statute. Id.

Summary of this case from In re Dall. Cnty.

In Bond v. Carter, 72 S.W. 1059 (1903), the Texas Supreme Court cited the latter provision in rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of an order transferring an appeal from one court of civil appeals to another under an 1895 statute.

Summary of this case from Simmons v. State
Case details for

Bond v. Carter

Case Details

Full title:T.B. BOND v. S.E. CARTER

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Mar 26, 1903

Citations

96 Tex. 359 (Tex. 1903)
72 S.W. 1059

Citing Cases

Watson v. Jackson

Appellant's contentions are, in substance, that the telegram to the Continental State Bank was but a simple…

Witherspoon v. Daviss

In 1895 the Legislature, acting in pursuance of that provision of the Constitution, and by the authority…