The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1877-06-21
Synopsis of Decisions In the Su.
preme Court.
REPORTED BY JOHN C. RANDOLPH Of
THE AUSTIN BAR.

THE AUSTIN BAR.
Palmer v. Chandler; appeal from
Blanco. Opinion by Moore, j.
1. The supposed vendee of land,
which is in fact part of the public do
main, is not estopped from acquiring
the land from the State in his own
right as pre-emptor or otherwise, ard
he may also sue for and recover back
the purchase money which was paid
for it, though at the time Of its sale,
and when possession of it was taken
by the vendee, both parties supposed
the land in fact belong to the vendor.
2. Ii the vendor has no valid right
to or interest in the land, which will
pass to or vest in the vendee, he can
not claim vendors lien to secure
notes given in payment for it.
3. Appellant had not occupied the
land three years when he sold it to ap
pellee. Evidently, therefore, he had
no vested right to or fixed and defined
interest IN the land as pre-emptor
when he sold it. When he aban-
doned and ceased to occupy it, he lost
or gave up the inchoate right
which he previously had to acquire it
by continuing to occupy and improve
it for the requisite time to entitle him
to patent. The right of his ven lee
to patent as presumption settler re-
ceived no aid by reason of the previous
occupation of it by appellant.
Affirmed.
Galloway ct al. Y. Nichols ct al. ap-
peal from Tarrant. Opinion by
Moore, j.
1. The court did not err in over
ruling appellants motion in the court
below to enter nunc pro tune the judg-
ment, which seems to be clearly and
satisfactorily shown to have been
rendered by the probate court con-
firming the sale of the land in contro-
versy, which had been made by the
administrator in obedience to the order
of said court.
2. The land was duly and regularly
sold by the administrator IN obedience
to an order of the probate court. The
report of the sale was duly returned,
examined and confirmed by the court
and the guardian was ordered to make
a deed to the purchaser, as appears by
the entry upon the judges docket, and
by positive and uncontradicted parol
testimony to the same effect. 1t also
appears that the land was sold for its
fair value, and that the entire purchase
money had been paid to the guardian.
The court below in effect charged the
jury that they should find for the
plaintiffs irrespective Of all other con-
"A 81. L.,
the record chat the sale by the guardi-
an had been confirmed by the court.
Held, That the court erred in giving
this charge.
Reversed.
The State of Texas v. Vela et ais. /; ap-
peal from Travis. Opinion by o.
NJ. Roberts, G. j.
1.-THE evidence OF right filed with
the petition In this case was the certifi-
cate of the Secretary Of State in the
State of Tamaulipas on the eleventh Of
May, 1881, that in q list of names of
persons who had denounced lands ss
recognized by the government there
was one as follows: Without survey
on the other side of the RIO Grsnde.
Sitios A, the citizen, Santiago Vela,
in the estancia of said Ygnacio. City
of Guerrero, fourteenth February, 1881.
This of itself is no part of the pro-
ceedings in title to land. At most
it will serve to indicate the claim OF
land sought to be established in this
suit. The proof, under this claim,
was the verbal evidence of witness, to
the effect that they knew that an er
pediente had been completed, under the
decree No. "a, OF 1888, and sent to
Victoria, where the Governor of Tam
aulpas, In 1S4s, made a concession up
on it, which was brought back and de-
livered to the interested party. This
evidence was objected to on the trial.
It was not shown that . copy OF the
proceedings, constituting the iHter'Oente,
could not be produced, which, if they
exist, would be the proper evidence Of
the right to the land claimed. The
evidence was not competent, and was
insufficient 20 establish the claim 10
The land"
Reversed and remanded.