In Sheffield v. Hogg, 124 Tex. 290, 77 S.W.2d 1021, 1028, 80 S.W.2d 741, our Supreme Court, speaking through Judge Greenwood, said of the Noble Case, just quoted from: "The principle underlying the determination in United States v. Noble, supra, that the mineral royalties there under discussion constituted interests in land, had been announced in that tribunal as far back as 1823, when, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Washington, the court said: `A right to land essentially implies a right to the profits accruing from it, since, without the latter, the former can be of no value.Summary of this case from Frost v. Standard Oil Co. of Kansas
Decided April 3, 1935.
Jurisdiction — Conflict of Decisions.
The setting aside by a Court of Civil Appeals of a finding to the effect that under a certain state of facts an automobile dealer was unauthorized to refinance one's note with another company is not in conflict with prior decisions holding that as a general rule the question of whether or not one party is agent for another is a question of fact, and there being no conflict the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
Error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Seventh District, in an appeal from Lubbock County.
The opinion states the case. Judgment of trial court in favor of defendant Sumner was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals ( 49 S.W.2d 960), and Sumner brings error to the Supreme Court.
The case was referred to the Commission of Appeals, Section A, for their opinion thereon and the Supreme Court adopted same and ordered judgment entered in accordance therewith.
Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Wilson, Randal Kilpatrick, of Lubbock, for plaintiff in error.
Dallas C. Biggers and Roy W. McDonald, both of Dallas, for defendant in error.
This suit was brought in the district court for a balance of $552.50, with a small amount of interest, and for attorneys' fees in the sum of $90.00. It also sought foreclosure of the mortgage on an automobile alleged to be of the value of $550.00. Judgment of the district court was in favor of the defendant, plaintiff in error here. This judgment was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals and the cause remanded. 49 S.W.2d 960.
It is obvious that this court has no jurisdiction of this case in the absence of conflict in decision with the decision of some other court. While the petition for writ of error alleges a conflict with certain decisions, we have carefully examined same and find there is no conflict such as is necessary in order to confer jurisdiction on this court. The Court of Civil Appeals merely held that under a certain state of facts an automobile dealer was unauthorized to refinance defendant in error's note with another company. The fact that the Court of Civil Appeals set aside the finding of the jury upon this issue does not show a conflict with prior decisions holding generally that ordinarily the question of whether or not one party is agent for another is a question of fact. Under the decision of City National Bank in Childress v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 78 S.W.2d 576 (Com. App), and authorities there cited, it is obvious that there was no such conflict of decision as to give this court jurisdiction. The writ of error was therefore improperly granted.
The application was not granted upon the conflicts alleged, and the granting of same was no doubt due to the opening statement in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals to the effect that "this suit was filed in the district court of Lubbock County by appellant against appellee to recover on a note for the sum of $1,095, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, and for a foreclosure of a mortgage lien upon a certain automobile." The suit was in fact for only a balance upon this note.
The writ of error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court April 3, 1935.