4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 13 (view source)
Revision as of 16:24, July 6, 2023
, July 6, 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
* ''Dillingham v. Putnam'', 14 S.W. 303, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/014_SW_303.pdf#page=3 305] (Tex. 1890) ("We do not wish to be understood to hold that hardships which might and would frequently result if the validity of such a law as that in question was sustained would furnish . . . but to hold that a law which denies to any individual, whether acting in his own right or in a fiduciary capacity, or to a corporation, the right to appeal unless a ''supersedeas'' bond is executed, is violative of the constitution in that it deprives this court, if given effect, of jurisdiction conferred on it by the constitution, and deprives the party seeking revision of a judgment here of remedy by due course of law.") | * ''Dillingham v. Putnam'', 14 S.W. 303, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/014_SW_303.pdf#page=3 305] (Tex. 1890) ("We do not wish to be understood to hold that hardships which might and would frequently result if the validity of such a law as that in question was sustained would furnish . . . but to hold that a law which denies to any individual, whether acting in his own right or in a fiduciary capacity, or to a corporation, the right to appeal unless a ''supersedeas'' bond is executed, is violative of the constitution in that it deprives this court, if given effect, of jurisdiction conferred on it by the constitution, and deprives the party seeking revision of a judgment here of remedy by due course of law.") | ||
* ''Texas Mexican Ry. Co. v. Locke'', 63 Tex. 623, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''Texas Mexican Ry. Co. v. Locke'', 63 Tex. 623, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/063_Tex_623.pdf#page=6 628] (1885) ("Such a construction as that contended for by the appellees cannot be maintained either upon reason or by authority. If it is true, then there is no court in which appellant can secure an adjudication upon its rights. And that would render the declaration in the Bill of Rights, that 'all courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law,' the merest bombast. What profit is it to appellant that 'all courts are open,' if in none of these it can secure a remedy 'by due course of law?'") | ||
* ''County of Anderson v. Kennedy'', 58 Tex. 616, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/58_Tex._616.pdf#page=7 622-23] (1883) ("It would be hard to believe that it was the intention of the constitution to give to no courts the power to hear and determine a multitude of questions which affect the welfare of the people most vitally, which, however, cannot be exactly measured by dollars and cents or defined by subject matter. Purvis ''v''. Sherrod, 12 Tex. 160. If such be true of the present constitution, then the declaration in the bill of rights that 'all courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law,' is a mockery.") | * ''County of Anderson v. Kennedy'', 58 Tex. 616, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/58_Tex._616.pdf#page=7 622-23] (1883) ("It would be hard to believe that it was the intention of the constitution to give to no courts the power to hear and determine a multitude of questions which affect the welfare of the people most vitally, which, however, cannot be exactly measured by dollars and cents or defined by subject matter. Purvis ''v''. Sherrod, 12 Tex. 160. If such be true of the present constitution, then the declaration in the bill of rights that 'all courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law,' is a mockery.") | ||