Hillebrand v. McMahan

Citations

• 59 Tex. 450
• 2 Tex. L. R. 65
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 195

Syllabus

<p>1. Jurisdiction of attachment liens.— Article Y, section 8, of the constitution! of 1876, vesting in the district courts jurisdiction of all suits for the recovery of land and the enforcement of liens thereon, confers on them exclusive jurisdiction over all liens created by act of the- parties, and which existed before the suit was-begun; such as mortgages, vendors’ liens, and the like, the adjudication of which often requires a degree of legal learning which justices of the peace were not supposed to possess. But that section does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the district courts over attachment liens, which are fixed by operation of the law, about which no finding in the verdict is required, and the foreclosure of which follows as a matter of right on a return of verdict for the moneyed demand, to secure which the writ of attachment was issued.</p> <p>2. Same. — Since the constitution of 1876 (article Y, section 8) contains the same language used in the former constitutions, in conferring jurisdiction on the district courts for the enforcement of liens, except that it restricts instead of enlarging that jurisdiction, it cannot be construed to deprive justices of the peace of the power to enforce attachment liens on lands for amounts within their jurisdiction, which, under former constitutions, they have exercised without question for thirty years. It must be construed to limit the exclusive jurisdiction of the district courts to that class of liens on land of which they had taken special and sole cognizance under previous constitutions, with power still existing in justices of the peace to foreclose such liens on land as, under previous constitutions, and without reference to the act of August 13, 1870, they had enforced against property of all kinds.</p>