State v. Snyder
Citations
- 66 Tex. 687
- 18 S.W. 106
- 1886 Tex. LEXIS 599
Syllabus
<p>1 Jurisdiction—School lands.—Suit was brought by the state April 12, 1884, in Mitchell county, Texas, to recover thirty sections of school land alleged to have been fraudulently purchased from the state The suit was brought under authority of the act of April 14, 1883, to investigate land frauds, etc. On October 15, 1884, the defendant pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court, setting forth that undei the act authorizing the suit, the district court of Travis county alon. had jurisdiction of such suits when brought to recover thirty sections of land On December 30, 1884, the state amended its petition, and reduced its claim to twenty sections of land On January 5, 1885, the defendants renewed their plea to the jurisdiction, setting forth, that from April 12, 1884, to December 30, 1884, the suit was, and remained a suit for more than twenty sections of land of which the district court of Travis county alone had jurisdiction On January 7 1885, the plea to the jurisdiction was sustained. Held.</p> <p>(1) The act of April 14, 1883, required such suits to be brought within twelve months after it took effect</p> <p>(2) The suit was practically a suit to try title</p> <p>(3) In such a suit the state may set up such facts as are necessary to such relief as could be given only by a court of equity, without in the least depriving the action of its character as an action to try title to land.</p> <p>(4) The jurisdiction of the district court of Mitchell county over the subject matter of litigation, was not dependant on the act of April 14,1883, but existed by reason of the jurisdiction conferred on it by.the constitution.</p> <p>(5) The sixth section of the act of April 14, 1883, determined the venue of actions to be instituted under it, but did not confer jurisdiction over the subject matter; and if no objection Were made in proper time and manner to the venue, a suit might be maintained in any county in the State for over twenty-five sections of land</p> <p>(6) The court
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- sovereign immunity is premised on the conclusive presumption that, absent express waiver of immunity from suit, the state “fully recognizes every just claim the citizen has against it, that in its own way it will do justice in reference thereto, and that it has ability to do so”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Stayton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Federal Sign v. Texas Southern UniversityTexas Supreme Court· 1997-10-02· cited 1,114×
- Reata Construction Corp. v. City of DallasTexas Supreme Court· 2006-06-30· cited 710×
- Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. State ex rel AllredTexas Supreme Court· 1933-06-24· cited 120×
- Rosenberg Development Corporation v. Imperial Performing Arts, Inc.Texas Supreme Court· 2019-03-08· cited 69×
- Chapman v. KelloggTexas Commission of Appeals· 1923-05-30· cited 43×
- Chaney v. ColemanTexas Supreme Court· 1890-04-29· cited 36×
- Martin v. KieschnickTexas Commission of Appeals· 1921-06-01· cited 15×
- State v. Franco-American Securities, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Texas· 1943-04-01· cited 12×
- Anderson v. RobisonTexas Supreme Court· 1921-03-23· cited 9×
- Warnock v. MillsTexas Commission of Appeals· 1927-02-23· cited 7×
- State v. RhombergTexas Supreme Court· 1887-11-22· cited 3×
- Randolph v. StateTexas Supreme Court· 1889-04-12· cited 2×
- In re R.L.Court of Appeals of Texas· 2011-09-14· cited 2×
- Board of Levee Com'rs of Tensas Basin Levee Dist. v. Tensas Delta Land Co.Fifth Circuit· 1913-04-08· cited 2×
- In Re RlTex. App. Ct., 4th Dist. (San Antonio)· 2011-09-14· cited 1×
- Anderson v. State ex rel. AllredTexas Commission of Appeals· 1933-06-24· cited 1×
- Reata Construction Corporation v. City of DallasTexas Supreme Court· 2004-04-02
- in the Matter of R.L., a ChildTex. App. Ct., 4th Dist. (San Antonio)· 2011-09-14
- in the Guardianship of Lonnie Phillips, Jr., an Incapacitated PersonTex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston)· 2015-10-22
- Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionTexas Attorney General Reports· 1963-07-02
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Borden v. HoustonTexas Supreme Court· 1847-12-15· cited 47×
- United States v. BarkerSupreme Court· 1827-02-23· cited 34×
- Houston & Texas Central Railroad v. A. G. Graves & Co.Texas Supreme Court· 1878-07-01· cited 26×
- Grimes v. HobsonTexas Supreme Court· 1877-07-01· cited 24×
- State v. KronerTexas Supreme Court· 1847-12-15· cited 23×
- Dangerfield v. PaschalTexas Supreme Court· 1857-07-01· cited 19×
- Magee v. Chadoin's Ex'rTexas Supreme Court· 1876-07-01· cited 18×
- Treasurer of State v. WygallTexas Supreme Court· 1877-07-01· cited 17×
- Peveler v. PevelerTexas Supreme Court· 1880-11-19· cited 17×
- Masterson v. AshcomTexas Supreme Court· 1881-03-08· cited 16×
- State v. PurcellTexas Supreme Court· 1856-07-01· cited 15×
- McCarty v. MoorerTexas Supreme Court· 1878-07-01· cited 9×
- Governor v. AllbrightTexas Supreme Court· 1858-07-01· cited 5×
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.