Jarvis v. Taylor County

Court of Appeals of Texas

Jarvis v. Taylor County

168 S.W. 415, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 1150

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 16, 1914

DocketNo. 7809.

StatusPublished

This text of 168 S.W. 415 (Jarvis v. Taylor County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jarvis v. Taylor County, 168 S.W. 415, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 1150 (Tex. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

CONNER, C. J.

We seem to be in direct conflict with the case of Bautsch v. State, 27 Tex. App. 342, 11 S. W. 414, to which our attention has been called since the original opinion herein was handed down. But after a consideration of the case referred to, and after again reviewing the constitutional provision (not adverted to in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals), and after reconsideration of the statutes relating to the subject which are referred to in our original opinion, we feel constrained to adhere to the conclusion heretofore announced. As was so well said by Chief Justice Gaines in a similar case of conflict:

“The opinion of this court upon questions coming before it in cases of which it has jurisdiction is the law of the case, and every party to the suit has the right to demand that we give it effect.”

See May v. Finley, 91 Tex. 352, 43 S. W. 257.

The motion for rehearing is, accordingly, overruled.

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

CONNER, C. J.

We seem to be in direct conflict with the case of Bautsch v. State, 27 Tex. App. 342, 11 S. W. 414, to which our attention has been called since the original opinion herein was handed down. But after a consideration of the case referred to, and after again reviewing the constitutional provision (not adverted to in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals), and after reconsideration of the statutes relating to the subject which are referred to in our original opinion, we feel constrained to adhere to the conclusion heretofore announced. As was so well said by Chief Justice Gaines in a similar case of conflict:

“The opinion of this court upon questions coming before it in cases of which it has jurisdiction is the law of the case, and every party to the suit has the right to demand that we give it effect.”

See May v. Finley, 91 Tex. 352, 43 S. W. 257.

The motion for rehearing is, accordingly, overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 S.W. 415, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 1150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarvis-v-taylor-county-texapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack