Hedrick v. Marshall

2 Citing cases

  1. Opinion No. GA-0632

    Opinion No. GA-0632 (Ops. Tex. Atty. Gen. May. 30, 2008)

    Nixon v. Adm of Gen.Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 475 (1977); see also Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 611-12 (1993) ("[C]ommon-law forfeiture fell only upon those convicted of a felony or of treason. 'The convicted felon forfeited his chattels to the Crown and his lands escheated to his lord; the convicted traitor forfeited all of his property, real and personal, to the Crown.'"); Hedrick v. Marshall, 282 S.W. 289, 291 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1926, no writ) ("By the ancient common law, when sentence was pronounced for treason or other felony, the offender was by operation of law placed in a state of attainder. And there were three principal incidents consequent on such attainder, to wit, forfeiture, corruption of blood, and an extinction of civil rights, more or less complete, which was denominated 'civil death.'").

  2. Opinion No. JM-415

    Opinion No. JM-415 (Ops. Tex. Atty. Gen. Dec. 31, 1985)

    Davis v. Laning, 19 S.W. 846 (Tex. 1892). Cf. Hendrick v. Marshall, 282 S.W. 289 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1926, no writ). But they are not free to enter a master/servant contract for the sale of their labor, time or services — the disposition of which is lodged by law in the state. The relationship of master and servant exists only where the master has the right to control the servant — a right which a convicted prisoner cannot, sui juris, confer upon an employer.