Hunt v. Johnson

Texas Supreme Court

Hunt v. Johnson

171 S.W. 1125, 106 Tex. 509, 1914 Tex. LEXIS 95

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 23, 1914

DocketNo. 2380.

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 171 S.W. 1125 (Hunt v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hunt v. Johnson, 171 S.W. 1125, 106 Tex. 509, 1914 Tex. LEXIS 95 (Tex. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice BBOWH

delivered the opinion of the court.

Hugh Hunt and Winfield Scott erected a gin in the City of Cleburne, near to the residences of S. B. Johnson and B. J. Copeland, who resided on separate lots, neither being interested in the property of the otlrer. It was claimed in the petition that Hunt and Scott so located their gin house, and so operated the gin as to cause the property of J ohnson' and Copeland, each, to deteriorate in value the sum of $750, each. It is not claimed that the plaintiffs are joint owners of the property injured, nor that either was interested in the damages sought to be recovered for injury done to- the property of the other.

The plaintiffs in error made their objection to the joinder of the-actions in the District Court, but they make no objection here.

Parties can not join in an action to- recover separate and distinct parcels of'land or damages thereto in which they have no- common or joint interest, and the objection of the defendants should have been sustained by the District Court. Curry v. York, 3 Texas, 359; Allen v. Read, 66 Texas, 21. In the case last cited, the court said:

“In view of the disposition that will be made of the case, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the evidence to support the claims of Mrs. Thompson, Mrs. Jeffus and B. H. Bead, under the statutes of limitation. As each of the plaintiffs claim separate parts of the league of land in controversy, the' action by them all,is irregular, and had objections been made, at proper time, and in proper manner, to the maintenance of this joint action, they should have been sustained; but this was not done, and as this relates to the procedure, and not to the rights of the several parties, the objection can not be made in this court.”'

If each plaintiff had instituted a separate suit in the County Court, or in the District Court, this court would have no jurisdiction of either case. The uniting of .two separate eases does not constitute one case, and as this court, has no jurisdiction of either case, it can not have jurisdiction of two, when improperly joined. Upon the face of the proceeding, the question of jurisdiction of the subject matter arises without objection by either party. Such want of jurisdiction of subject matter can not be waived by the parties, nor disregarded by this court. It follows that this cause must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Chief Justice BBOWH

delivered the opinion of the court.

Hugh Hunt and Winfield Scott erected a gin in the City of Cleburne, near to the residences of S. B. Johnson and B. J. Copeland, who resided on separate lots, neither being interested in the property of the otlrer. It was claimed in the petition that Hunt and Scott so located their gin house, and so operated the gin as to cause the property of J ohnson' and Copeland, each, to deteriorate in value the sum of $750, each. It is not claimed that the plaintiffs are joint owners of the property injured, nor that either was interested in the damages sought to be recovered for injury done to- the property of the other.

The plaintiffs in error made their objection to the joinder of the-actions in the District Court, but they make no objection here.

Parties can not join in an action to- recover separate and distinct parcels of'land or damages thereto in which they have no- common or joint interest, and the objection of the defendants should have been sustained by the District Court. Curry v. York, 3 Texas, 359; Allen v. Read, 66 Texas, 21. In the case last cited, the court said:

“In view of the disposition that will be made of the case, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the evidence to support the claims of Mrs. Thompson, Mrs. Jeffus and B. H. Bead, under the statutes of limitation. As each of the plaintiffs claim separate parts of the league of land in controversy, the' action by them all,is irregular, and had objections been made, at proper time, and in proper manner, to the maintenance of this joint action, they should have been sustained; but this was not done, and as this relates to the procedure, and not to the rights of the several parties, the objection can not be made in this court.”'

If each plaintiff had instituted a separate suit in the County Court, or in the District Court, this court would have no jurisdiction of either case. The uniting of .two separate eases does not constitute one case, and as this court, has no jurisdiction of either case, it can not have jurisdiction of two, when improperly joined. Upon the face of the proceeding, the question of jurisdiction of the subject matter arises without objection by either party. Such want of jurisdiction of subject matter can not be waived by the parties, nor disregarded by this court. It follows that this cause must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 S.W. 1125, 106 Tex. 509, 1914 Tex. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-johnson-tex-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack