*1 (Tex. REI>ORTER 8.Intоxicating Liquors (§ 1*) Regula — tion. † v. STATE. HERNANDEZ subject The sale police power. 1911. of Civil 1911.) cases, Intoxicating Rehearing, [Ed. March Note.—For other see On Motion Liquors, Dig. 1; Dig. 1.*] § Cent. Dec. § Intoxicating Liquors 99*) (§ 1. —License Sell — Nature. Court; Appeal P. H. from Bexar per- mere A to sell intoxicants license Shook, Judge. unlawful, do mit to what would police pоwer. revoking From an Bias Hernandez’s Intoxicating cases, see liquor appeals. Appeal Dig. Liquors, § § Cent. Dee. Vernor, Henry Ryan Ryan E. 277*) (§ Pro 2. Constitutional Law —Due Newton, Lewis, T. J. Dan “Property.” cess— Bee, State. Carlos for the proper- is not A sell intoxicants license to ty prohibition within the constitutional process. deprivаtion NEILL, 8 of the act J. Section cases, Note.—For other see Constitution relating Thirty-First (page 295) Law, Dig. 277.* § al Dec. intoxicating liquors, to the sale of definitions, Phrases, For see Words and that; “Any having person license firm 6, pp. 5693-5728; pp. or 7768-7770.] vol. vol. liquor malt or a retail as a retail dealer 247*) Appellate Courts Courts —Ju — any provi- who shall violate dealer risdiction. Const, 5, 6, limiting provisions § act, art. or condi- sions of this or the to civil diction Court liquor of the dealer’s bond tions courts cases which the district firm, given person or this act under section limit- have a retail ing shall forfeit or their license court’s involving probate matters, amounts, he; liquor dealer, the casе justice appeals Appeals county court, of Civil the Court by any property tax affidavit of an order clerk citizen office of the of having Leg. 8,§ under Acts 31st e. revoking liquor firm, person license for of law. or court that such cases, Courts, violating guilty Note.—For other Cent. see TEd. of such licenses has been any 749-765; Dig. 247.*] Dec. § .§§ act, provisions or the of the Intoxicating Liquors liquor (§ dealer’s of said 4. visions —License op to ing-Review. Proceed- Sell — Forfeiture—Nature duty immediately bond, of the it shall be the cause to Proceedings Leg. c. Acts 31st § to such he issued a notice to revoke law, retail license for violation judicial; having firm son or so power being county judge affidavit, filing of such them county court, and no lies duty judge of said shall also be the order, statutory provision for want hearing a time for the therefor. to set Intoxicating cases, same more of said affidavit see Liquors, 108.*] Cent. Dec. § days, time less than six at a than days, ten date On of said said affidavit 5. and Error proof for and —Dismissal op —Want Jurisdiction. same, if it determined that said appeal jurisdiction On a court hav- having such has vio- firm license son or so subject-matter, of the should be reversed and the provisions lated case dis- missed. provisions or conditions of their cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see bond, said the Error, § court to enter declar- minutes of said court an order (§ 247*) Appellate 6. Courts Courts —Li forfeited and said license cense —“Suit Recover Forfeiture.’’ from said date. In case „c. Leg. under Acts 31st is determined that the said or firm violation of law, is not a suit having violated feiture, jurisdiction Constitution, affecting within thjs act, Appeals. Court his said visions conditions of Courts, bond, shall be the of the clerk er’s of said court Dig. 247.* immediately notify Comp- definitions, Phrases, For other Words 7, p. 6779.] vol. Accounts of the State of troller of Public Texas, Austin, Texas, of the result of such Law 7. —Health hearing.” Power. —Police susceptible Things use to appellant applied obtained in regulated health morals can be lice provisions of the act a power. authorizing retail see Constitution spirituous, vinous, sell dealer to as such Law, 81;* al Health, designated place at a malt § 20.*] Dig. Key Rep'r *For otlier and section Series & NUMBER Dec. April 12, error † Writ of dismissed *2 Tes.) 171 HERNANDEZ v. STATE county county, Tex. Constitution has San. 5, in force was court. While such license was Article 16.§ thereunder, pursuing оccupation apparent appealed affida- that property probate tax- vit was filed made and from nor has relation to matters county Then, appealed county in the office citizen of said to a case court. county county case, the clerk of the court of if it to a criminal does relate pro- charging exceeding the violation of that must in involve a matter value $1,000 his bond vision of the which inhibits and condition act the sum constitute a civil case within the of $200 and not exceed keeping jurisdic- from such a licensee open place house, county where of business tion of the is the court. suсh a case controversy under such were sold the matter midnight Saturday jurisdiction 12 and between o’clock which the court is de- that a. m. the follow- hour 5 o’clock In termined. ing Monday. sec- It cannot be that county quoted, appealed tion of act from was such val- county be issued no- Bexar tice in at once caused to ue form basis for civil jurisdiction him of within the court. for its a time set A license to sell is nei- thereon, hearingof right property the same and evidence ther a contract licensee, that determined but a mere do what would had act violated the otherwise be elements unlawful. has none of the Whereupon chаrged the affidavit. and confers.none with- contemplation entered an order on the minutes of the constitutional declaring provision deprived said court said license forfeited that “no life, liberty and so entered this Prom said license canceled. the order of prosecuted. right cess of law” there no vested away may to dismiss a motion a license which a state take ground may public that this court when the interest of the demand jurisdiction privileges is without to entertain it. We it. The of the licensee ex- solely believe the motion be sustained. ist license is virtue 5, 6, granted Article of the Constitution power that “Courts have lice of the state under which the license appellate jurisdiction power precludes granted, coextensive with the was itself respective districts, divesting limits their state from itself of it whenever the public may shall district court or civil extend to all cases which the interest of the demand it. See original Black, 127, Intoxicating Liquors, 145, 150; courts have аppellate jurisdiction, Joyce, Intoxicating Liquors, 185, 186, 187, restric- regulations prescribed may 190; (7th tions and Oonstitutional Limitations 887; Crowley Ed.) p. Christensen, law.” Prom this will be seen that the v. 34 L. 137 U. Young 620; of Courts of Civil is S. 11 Ed. Sexton, Rep. confined civil eases of which the district blood v. 32 Mich. 20 Am. jurisdiction. may 654; 578; Kinsley, Voight courts have v. 133 Mass. v. Com. Legislature Com’rs, Law, 358, be the the Constitution has under another clause of N. Excise 59 J. Atl. 292; Sprayberry Atlanta, R. to extend 37 L. A. v. jurisdiction, 120, 13 197; Luverne, their thorizing as has been done au- Ga. S. E. the transfer of causes from one 103 Minn. 15 L. 115 W. R. A. supreme judicial another; 698; (N. S.) district La Croiz v. Commission province ers, Rep. be doubted within its Am. Conn. Calder Kurby, City to extend to matters other than civil 71 Mass. cases. Newson Galvestоn, No such extension of their 76 Tex. 13 S. W. L.7 attempted. ever been R. A. 797. Again, had It is in view of the enunciated proceeding in illustrated these authorities we diction of order and hold entered, appealed appealed from or if such that the order was not made ceedings in which a civil case the nature of case, this court can have none. hence have no authority proceedings. probate review from matters and causes Aside county Besides, justice courts, appealed in which the order was. made court has “exclusive civil judicial controversy shall were not but administrative their cases where matter Legislaturе nature; $500, and not and concurrent intention be- $200 in value exceed exceed interest; vest, by quoted, juris- ing act the section of the exclusive diction ter in regarding court when the the administration of with the district mat- controversy license in $500 shall exceed and not probate county $1,000. than in of matters himself rather exceed justiсes authority appealed courts, county court; and that as such and cases giv- him, specially is all the conferred on (Tes. REPORTER authority judges, action of as courts —have review state —as usurpation matter, gross be a it would authority authority to undertake to of call in for this court exercised appeal, delegated by entertaining question, accordance with the statute *3 proceedings step him in taken the with such administrative and vested them culminating imposed power, exercising upon Mr. which them the attempted People appeal. to Hernandez it. Health, Department this, logically ex rel. Lodes v. If it fol- we are correct in S.) (N. L. R. A. 82 N. E. to re- Y. without lows view the forfeiting Luverne, supra. We do liquor license, as appellant’s mean to a wrongfully that one whose intimate and are arbitrarily proceeding dealer has to in- in this constitutionality a quire into remedy arbitrary wrongful for such proceedings were had. only say action, remedy, if but has, to that his in this as is contended But inasmuch it by appeal. is he state, least, that, in at a motion dealer’s this appeal is prop- stamped as is law may mortgaged, sold, erty, be On Motion for assigned, property, is and differentiates Upon question o-ur original opinion those cited in the case from seems to To cor- be misunderstood. is mеre such license a which held that a impression rect counsel unlaw- mit ful, would be to do what have, say seems will to we that we enter- prop- has none of the elements that, brought tain no doubt in a in a cause Suppose erty. be conceded that court which has no of the sub- property, it ac- still such a license is Tеxas quires ject-matter judgment appeal disposing and an a is taken from law such virtue of the character rendered of the matter and in under is held which creates it and proper practice involved, ap- is for being. is of its to the law subordination pellate judgment tribunal to reverse onere, to the cum as held illustrаte, and dismiss the case. To should privileges conditions and brought a behalf be imposed. of these One burdens burdens tain penalty proceed state to recover a cer- that, if license violates is forfeiture such court should to law, revok- try judgment it, undoubtedly and render indicat- manner in a ed proper course on would to be its own its face carries the law. It ed reverse the The and dismiss the case. rung warrant, knell be its death by appellate an rings it, he is not its owner. When inquiring volves the into say deprived of in life, according to an attitude diction of the which an being, its incident to if, upon taken, ascertaining is none, law. to inquiry it can make into law,” “according say because to We question involved, simply pro- but must things capable used sale of jurisdictional nounce its may, injurious or morals health be to asoto question from a dismissal which of the case reg- state, police power legal consequence. as follows Intoxicating liquors are ulated statute. in bеhalf But this suit subject, especially under considered as penalty state recover a to or a for- attended power, a business to purpose feiture. While its a was to forfeit community, statutes with may liquor, equipped license, nothing pecunia- sale of prohibit manufacture and ry sought he recovered on the buildings аlthough were erected readily distinguished is as forfeiture. prior purpose and used forfeiture, from a recover a regulating statute and enactment brought state for a lawful. the business a time when at punishable by pecunia- a ry statute a Kansas, Mugler 273, S. U. brought is„from fine a suit behalf of L. is within Ed. 205. It penalty. the state to vious liquor a ob- granting stаte, licenses for us that a forfeit receiving therefor, fees sale license, brought under general the license quoted original opinion, statute not be can- entirely. bidding upon This is founded their sale among classed “suits in behalf of cannot the state “that forfeitures,” to recover abridge away, manner barter weaken, any But, orig- held in Constitution. powers which these essential proceeding, opinion, inal government, ex- in all inherent judicial, to revoke a vigor important pur- istence to the which full er’s sue mit, which is mere society.” well-being organized occupation, which, punishable (7th Ed.) a crime and. Limitations under law, judges 400, the several notes. аuthorities cited GRANT) TEMPLE, ETC., Tex.) JOHNSON If, then, aof Beneficial forfeiture —Liabil Principal’s ity Agents—Acts of its hold- carrying destruction it the Business. by general property, be forfeited can er’s -associa- In an action why perceive it cannot law, one of members fail by tripping, show held to fall caused issued, a statute plaintiff that, fail- declares its constituted obey mandates of tion, business, acting ure he was outside own, purposes so that the issued, although it was under which is not liable. association bore the elements ours, ^specially like a law prescribes manner its administration Beneficial —Acts *4 .ascertaining stat- under the facts Agents Liability—Grand Order. n temple Where beneficial the forfeiture. subordinate constitute ute fully organized association has received and by himself, do- licensee our charter, of master and the relation neither acts, failing makes the to do certain principal agent and servant nor existed be- county judge, forfeiture; grand body under the and tween members sub- and temple inflicting an n ordinate while act- by in him authority, outside of its and in further- constituting simply the facts ascertains of its business. ance consequence revokes and -such forfeiture see Beneficial Associations, license. .and cancels §§ 16.*] The motion overruled. n Court, County; from District Bexar Seeligson, Judge. Arthur W. by against Actiоn Johnson Smith the Grand Temple OF Knights TABERNACLE TEMPLE AND GRAND and Tabernacle of and TA OF Daughters AND DAUGHTERS KNIGHTS of Tabor of International Or- ORDER OF THE BOR INTERNATIONAL plain- der of Twelve. From a for TWELVE v. JOHNSON. OF tiff, appeals. defendant Reversed and re- manded. for Rehear- 1911. On Todd, Carlos Bee and for C. C. 8, 1911.) ing, March Ridgeway, appellee. T. H. and Error X —Harm op Evidence. less Ereok —Admission society’s FLY, damages con- J. This insti- Admission in stitution, qualified where the a witness on identification by appellee against appellant tuted error, thereto, testify harmless was Twelve, Knights International Order Daughters by sworn to facts also same alleged Tabor, fully competent to have accrued witness. cases, Appeal obligation during other Er- Note.—For a fall initiation and 1051.*] 4161-4170 Dec. Tor, appellee. alleged It was beneficiary society incorpo- a fraternal :2. Beneficial —Initia Injuries —Variance. tion— laws Texas and rated under the affiliated In associa- an action beneficial other with defendant, the in personal injuries, plain- while tion for caused has, Texas, being initiated, allegation that he tiff was tripped by agents was one of the officers many temples local tabernacles under its n trip- organization enough to is broad cover jurisdiction, one of which is control and ping kind a sword or saber other Temple as Lone No. known Star tripping. locatеd in the San cases, Associations, county, Tex.; September 26, or about membership 1908, appellee applied n 3. Beneficial —Torts Liability. application temple Members — local an action Banks, presiding of- W. C. tripping from a fall caused temple, paid him local ficer initiated, testimony while where ail the ¡showed (cid:127)ceremony, tripping money, that the part was amount independent but an act of some one obligat- attend to be initiated and notified to temple, the association was not liable. by being ed, prepared blindfolded cases, see Beneficial in and conducted about agents grand organiza- hаll tions, the two Principal Agent (cid:127)4. —Torts— negligently and caused and was Liability. principal great force aud vio- liable the torts to fall the floor n agents prosecution furtherance permanently seriously lence business, and for acts of the jured. alleged count was Iu another authorized, expressly and for acts donе rug carpet agent’s employment caused fall was course principal’s benefit, whether rati- authorized or up. An an- or rolled was loose turned not, fied or forbidden. signed appellant or its was filed not swer Principal attorney, the court was treated Agent, defendants, parties an answer Key Rep’r *For and section NUMBER in Deo. Series
Hernandez v. State
135 S.W. 170
Tex. App.1911Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.