State v. Moore
Citations
- 57 Tex. 307
- 1882 Tex. LEXIS 135
Syllabus
<p>1. Motions — Consolidation of — Costs.— A motion against a county attorney to compel him to pay into the state treasury money which he had collected by suit against a defaulting tax collector, is practically a suit against him by the state, and where seven such motions were made, in seven different cases, it was not error * to consolidate them; nor was it error to refuse the costs of more than one motion.</p> <p>2. Attorney general — Powers and duties of—Legislative power over.— Although the attorney general is classed by the constitution as belonging to the executive department, and district and county attorneys are classed as belonging to the judicial department, the legislature, under the clause declaring that the attorney general “shall perform such other duties as may be required by law,” had the. power to make that officer the adviser of district and county attorneys, and the representative of the state in suits for the recovery of money due the state in counties in which there are no district or county attorneys.</p> <p>3. Same—District attorney — Fees of.—The legislature, however, cannot empower the attorney general to take control of cases in which the constitution makes the county or district attorneys the representative of the state; nor can it empower him to deprive those officers of the fees which are by law allowed in such cases.</p> <p>4. District and county attorneys — Powers and duties of.— The constitution gives to district and county attorneys the power to represent the state in all cases, civil and criminal, in the district and inferior courts of their respective counties, except in those cases where it confers that power on the attorney general.</p> <p>5. Legislative power — Limitation of.— The legislature, unless expressly authorized to do so, cannot withdraw power from the hands in which the constitution has placed it. Such power cannot be implied.</p> <p>6. County attorneys — Commissions of.— Although art. 257, R. S., recognizes the fact t
Judges: Stayton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
55 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Meshell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1987-07-01· cited 390×
- Morrow v. CorbinTexas Supreme Court· 1933-06-24· cited 287×
- State Ex Rel. Hill v. PirtleCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1994-09-14· cited 183×
- United Services Life Insurance Company v. DelaneyTexas Supreme Court· 1965-12-01· cited 162×
- State Ex Rel. Eidson v. EdwardsCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1990-06-27· cited 158×
- Shepperd v. AlanizCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1957-06-12· cited 46×
- R.R.E. v. GlennCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1994-08-30· cited 30×
- State v. GlassCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1942-12-10· cited 22×
- Wilson v. StateTex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)· 2011-04-12· cited 15×
- American Liberty Pipe Line Co. v. AgeyCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1942-12-16· cited 15×
- State Board of Dental Examiners v. BickhamCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1947-05-23· cited 14×
- Duclos v. Harris CountyTexas Commission of Appeals· 1927-10-12· cited 12×
- Satterwhite v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 2000-12-28· cited 11×
- State v. WALKER-TEXAS INVESTMENT COMPANYCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1959-05-13· cited 9×
- City of Austin v. JohnsTexas Supreme Court· 1884-06-28· cited 8×
- In re Houston County ex rel. SessionCourt of Appeals of Texas· 2015-08-19· cited 6×
- Aaronson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1989-09-27· cited 2×
- Herbert Ray Wilson v. StateTex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)· 2011-04-12
- Opinion No.Texas Attorney General Reports· 1987-08-25
- Opinion No.Texas Attorney General Reports· 1984-08-31
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.