The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1874-08-22

death, married again aud died leaving
an Infant daughter
IL appears, therefore, that neither
Mrs. Grigsby, nor this daughter by her
second marriage, We're participants In
the community estate.
Now, Daniel u. Grigsby, child by
the second vile, and this daughter of
Mrs. Grlgsby, 10y her second marriage
NOW Maria Louise Swindle, Joined 10y
her husband) bring the suit In ques-
ton, setting up their rights. We state
the points In this regard, not rs devel-
oped 10y the petition ~ u matter OF
form, but In our own way 10 show the
intrinsic points Ia common sense peo-
pie. We understand, then, rs the mar
row Of the ease, rs will evidently be
developed on The trial
First. That as the second Mrs. Grigs-
by was the wife when the family came
to Texas, and acquired the headlight,
she had an equal interest lit with
her husband, John Grigsby, aud that,
under our law of descent and dis,rlbn-
ton, the seven children by the first
wife We're only entitled to an equal
distribution Of the fathers half Of the
community property with the children
by the second marriage.
Second. That the two children by
the second marriage were entitled TO
an equal part of the fathers estate, but
to all of the mothers interest, unless
she had other heirs. But,
Thirdly. As by the second marriage
the mother had this daughter, she
would be entitled to como in equally
with them in the division of the moth
er's estate.
Practically, then, to what does the
suit amount? The petition answers.
They ask simply for re division, and
setSip a claim for five-eighteenths of
the land 10 which we have referred; or
in case division cannot be had, then
for sale, and u corresponding portion
of the proceeds. In other words, Dam
lei b. Grigsby wants twice rs much as
was allotted him In 1913, as son OF
both father and mother, while the sew
ell older were only of the half blood |;
and Mrs. Swindle, as y child of the
second mother by her second marriage,
who received nothing in 1913, now
wants to be equal with Daniel b. and
Emiline, In SO far as the mothers half
of the community property was con-
cerned.
We have tried to make it Us plain as
u complicated case can be stated.
Some OF the land is valuable as SUI
burban property some over
flowed bottom, some Is broken cliffs
on Turtle creek, some Is poor, barren,
sandy post oak land, away from the
vicinity of town, not worth Two dol
lars an acre, and some Is hog wallow
prairie. A portion of IL, however, is
the most valuable suburban property
we have.
But, remember, that no portion of the
city proper, from Cochran street to the
southeast line of the league, nor from
the river to beyond Judge Good's-or u
line crossing Elm street beyond the
last butcher house, the Pacific railway
near the round house, passing in front
of Dallas college and on to Cochran
street near the head of Dallas
branch, nor any land southeast of that
to the line beyond SCOTS mill, is in
any wise involved in the suit. More
over, some four or five hundred acres
of the most valuable part involved,
covering the fair grounds, the resi-
dences of Captain CASTOR and Colonel
Hughes aud other valuable places, has
already been adjusted by compromise
A desire to relieve anxiety and give
our fellow-citizens Il substantial view
Of the facts, and prevent unnecessary
uneasiness by thousands, has alone
prompted this statement. J. II. b.