The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1877-04-19
Synopsis OF Decisions In the SUI
preme Court.

appear.
Synopsis of Decisions In the SUI
Preme Court.
Clay v. Giddings. Appealed from
Washington county. Opinion by o.
NJ. Roberts, Oh. J.
/. AS to whether the father applied
the proceeds of sale of community
property, left in his hands at the death
of his wife, to the support of his
children, and used the same for their
benefit, would not generally be a cor
rect rule of law determining their (the
childrep's) interest in the community
property.
2. Conveyances were made in 1925
and 1927 from ]. F. to...,S. before Ste
phen F. Austin, as empresario and
judge of a colony, and left in the
Office, were not constructive notice
to subsequent purchasers in good faith.
: 3. A deed was executed by j. F. to
r. T. F. and ]. D. g., and was seen
by witness on record in 1851 or 1862.
In 1S48, before the deed to r. T. F.
and ]. D. G. was made, another party
who was interested in the purchase,
but whose name does not appear in
the deed, informed r. T. F. that ]. F.
had conveyed the land to one s., under
whose heirs appellant claims. R. T. F.
and j. D. G.. then made an examina-
ton of the records, but no transfer
was found. R. T. F. made inquiries
of J. F. in regard to the sale of the
land to g., and he denied having sold
the same, but admitted there had been
trade with S., which had been rescind-
ed. This was reported to ]. D. G. One
L., who was concerned in the purchase
with R. T. F. and ]. D. G., was in
formed by son of j. F., before the
purchase was made, that ]. F.. had sold
the land to s., and said s. was en-
ployed by the son to look after his in
terest. Two witnesses testify that the
transfer from ]. F. to S. was notori-
ously known in the neighborhood
where they lived, and that any one,
by making inquiries, would have been
likely to have ascertained the fact.
Held, that this evidence, taken to-
gether, was sufficient to put r. T. F.
and ]. p. c., and those interested with
them, upon inquiry, and was notice to
them of the existence of the deed to
S. from J. F.
4. The principle upon which an I'M
registered elder deed to land must
yield its priority to junior deed that
has been recorded first, Is that the
neglect to record the first deed has en-
abled the deceitlul vendor to impose
on one who has given fair considera-
ton for the land, under such circum-
stances as would reasonably justify an
ordinary prudent man in believing
that he was getting valid title to the
land in making the purchase Citing
the case of Watson VS.. Chalk, II Tex.
90 A.
Judgment reversed and cause re-
manded.
Salado College v. William A. Davis /;
appeal from Bell county. Opinion
by Judge Gould.
Appellant sold to the vendor of ap-
pellee part of its college tract of
land, with the condition in the deed
that a dam might be erected thereon
so as to utilize the water power, but
forbidding any dam high enough to
overflow the springs on the land still
owned by appellant. In 1870 appel
liant brought suit, alleging that appel
lee had erected a dam, causing the
overflow of its springs and praying
that the same be abated. Appellee an
swered that the suit was vexatious, al d
prayed damages of $3.50 as his counsel
fees in the case, and the further sum
of $1,000 damage sustained by reason
of his having been prevented by the
suit from selling his property. The
court below charged the jury that if
they found that the suit was instituted
to harass defendant, and that he had
lost an opportunity to sell by reason
of the suit, they should find for him
his reasonable counsel fees and actual
damages. Verdict for defendant for
$3.50. Held The foregoing charges
are erroneous. To bring an action
though there be no good ground is not
actionable. (Savil v. Roberts, 1 Sal
keld IA; 1 Id. Raymond 374; II NJ.
& W. 1854 And that in ordinary cases
of vexatious suits the award of court
costs is, in contemplation of law, full
compensation for the unjust vexation.
(Cottrel v. Jones, 70; E. c. L. 1919
This is not case in which defendant
can recover his counsel fees. Nander v.
Obert, decided at Austin term, 1861
Reversed and remanded.
R. W. and W. NJ. Campbell v. T. G.
Everts; appeal from Fannin county.
Opinion by Moore, justice.
This suit was brought by appellants
to recover tract of land conveyed to
them by an instrument which recited
the consideration to be the payment of
one hundred dollars down and that
the grantees therein were to pay the
further sum of eight hundred and
ninety dollars as soon as they got pos
session of the land by suit or
and in case they never
gained possession, the $500 meyer
20 be lost. To the introduction of |
this deed in evidence appellees OBJ
iected, on the ground that it was not |
n fact deed, and was a champerteus |
contract, which objections the court |
below sustained and excluded the deed. |
Held, That the instrument is in fact a |
Iced, and that the condition that the |
of the purchase money was
not to be paid unless the land was re-
covered did not render it champer-
tous contract; consequently, that the |
ruling of the court below in refusing |
to admit the deed in evidence before |
The jury was erroneous, for which the |