
    B. F. Cameron v. The State, David Boaz v. The State, and A. Swartz v. The State.
    Nos. 406, 407, and 408, Respectively.
    Distinct Suits Can Not Be Joined in Writ of Error. Suits by the State against three different defendants. Each suit was for different tract of land. Save as to description of the land, the pleadings and judgments in the three suits were identical. The defendants against whom judgments were rendered can not join in one petition for writ of error. Application must be made in each suit ................................. 247
    Application for writ of error to Court of Civil Appeals in cases tried in Liberty County.
    The petition in its material parts is as follows:
    “The petition for writ of error by B. F. Cameron, who resides in Liberty County, David Boaz, who resides in Tarrant County, and A. Swartz, who resides in Travis County, Texas, shows:
    ‘ ‘ That they were each separately sued in the District Court of Liberty County, Texas, but the pleadings are the same in all the cases except the description of the lands. There were a number of other similar suits filed in the same court by the Attorney-General about the same time—all involving the same questions of law and construction of the Constitution and statutes of the State. The cases against petitioners were selected as test cases and tried together as companion cases, both in the District Court and Court of Civil Appeals, the opinion and judgment being the same in all except the description of the land; hence the statement of one case is the statement of all.”
    [Here follows a statement of the Boaz case, adopted as of all.]
    “Petitioners further show, that from the judgments of said court they and each of them, giving the bond required by law, prosecuted their several appeals to the Court of Civil Appeals at Galveston, in which district Liberty County is situated. That said causes were on the — day of April, 1894, submitted on briefs of both parties, in which all the questions herein presented were fully presented. That on April 26, 1894, said court rendered its decision, holding each of the issues of law hereinafter stated against appellants, and in all things affirming the judgment of the court below. Motions for rehearing were made and overruled.
    “Plaintiffs in error file herewith and make part hereof certified copies of the judgments of said District Court and Court of Civil Appeals— opinion of Court of Civil Appeals, judgment of Court of Civil Appeals, motion for rehearing, and order of court overruling said motion.”
    Following were the necessary formal allegations, with specific complaints of matters and decisions alleged to be error, which this court is asked to revise and correct.
    
      The application closes: “Wherefore petitioners pray that they be granted a writ of error, and that the State be cited as the law directs, and for all necessary orders and decrees.”
    
      Ford & Me Comb, for application.
   GAINES, Chief Justice.

This is an application for three writs of error to three distinct judgments in three cases, which are not only several and separate, but which are wholly disconnected, though each of them involves the same question. In such form the application can not be considered. The several applicants will be allowed ten days in which to present separate applications.

Delivered October 8, 1894.  