Opinion
No. 2631.
Decided February 18, 1914.
Certified Question — Jurisdiction of Supreme Court — Substantive Law.
The Court of Civil Appeals, having decided the case before them without dissent, can not, pending a motion for rehearing, certify to the Supreme Court a question of substantive law involved, on the ground that they are doubtful as to the correctness of their ruling. The Supreme Court can obtain jurisdiction in such case only on application for writ of error. (Rev. Stats., arts. 1521, 1522, Laws, 33d Leg., p. 107; First St. Bk. of Archer City v. Power, ante, p. 210.) (P. 266.)
Questions certified from the Court of Civil Appeals, First District, in an appeal from Polk County.
The case was decided by the appellate court without dissent. On motion for rehearing they certified to the Supreme Court the question of substantive law involved (whether the contract on which the rights of the parties depended was one for the sale of land, and therefore void under the Statute of Frauds because not in writing) on the ground that they were in doubt as to the correctness of their ruling.
Marsene Johnson, Barkley Green, Holshausen German, and J.L. Manry, for appellants.
Baker, Botts, Parker Garwood, Hill Hill, and J.C. Feagin, for appellees.
Because the certificate submits the substantive law of the case this court has no jurisdiction, and the certificate is dismissed. See article 1522, chapter 55, page 107, Laws Thirty-third Legislature; also see memorandum opinion in First State Bank of Archer City et al. v. F.M. Power, cause No. 2628, ante, p. __.
Certificate dismissed.