The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-05-11

Reported Expressly for the STATESMAN
Commissioner OF Appeals.

Commissioners OF Appeals.
The state VS.. Pedro Sais ct al; appeal
from Travis county.-Confirmatio of
three leagues of land sought under act of
August 10, 1870. Reference is made to
the opinion of Roberts, G. j., in Al Texas,
go, 321, for full discussion of the above
act. The attorney general having
waived time. accepted service of inter-
rogatories, and agreed to the appointment
of special commissioner, his failure to
cross does not prevent appellee's use OF
the evidence. The omission of the
officers jurat to the certificate of the
commission is cured by amendment by
the officer under leave OF the court.
Citizens and foreigners are both included
IN the colonization law of Tamaulipas of
Dec. 10, 1926, the former simply being
preferred. p. ID. 1888, article % of that
law only gave the right TO such quantity
of land as the party might desire, not TO
exceed five leagues. Such a construction
results from the context and plain i'm
port of the language, and was
its execution. The record Up. 10y does
not sustain the position, urging reversal,
that this land was appraised at SO per
league. and that the lowest limit was
fixed by law at $50. The statement in
the expediente that the three leagues had
been appraised at 800, which with the
dispatch had been directed to the COVER
nor, being recital by public officer in
the discharge of official duty should sus.
tain the finding of the court in that par
ticular, only when the grant was actual
ly issued by the execution that the or
| der was made directing the alcalde to
put the grantOr in possession. This claim
originated in 1882, founded in good faith.
The expediente contains all REQUESTS of
10 a nf nd hn Al
purchase money, and IL is shown that
the continuing in possession by the ap-
pellee and his fathei, prior to the desig-
nation in 1892. was with the officials of
Tamaulipas considered equitable title.
The destruction OF the records of the
state of Tamaulipas in 1865, disabled ap-
pellee from exhibiting, by the record,
eXpediente. Act of 1870 includes such u
light as this, which would, by the law OF
1926, have matured into a perfect grant,
had not the sovereignty vested in the Re-
public OF Texas. Afflrmed.-watts, c.
Elizabeth Wilson ct al vs.. G. w.
Wright ct al appeal from Lamar county.
That the surviving husband petitioned
the appointment of another, without
reasons therefor, as administrator fun
der Hartley's digest, 995l, was an irregu-
| larity that does not avail the appellants
in this collateral proceedings, nor In any
other at this late date. It is sufficie Mt
that there was evidence of the death OF
the wife at the date of the appointment
of the administrator, though the evil
dence was conflicting, and the court
found the other way. While the de-
ceased did not have "a fixed domicil In
Texas at the time Of her death, the adj
mlnistrati0n was properly opened in La
mar county, where she owned realty. ae-
sording to statutes then in force. The
entering of the amount OF the purchase
price, as an approved credit against the
estate, is sufficient to rest title. [22 Tex.
80, not in point.l The order of sale and
the order confirming the same
sufficiently describe the land sold
when taken in connection with the in
yentory, and other existing facts. Vide
j. 9. Robertson ct al VS.. s. K. johnson
ct al, decided at the present term. The
conveyance OF the certificate at any time
before the patent issued transferred the
land. [45 Tex. 566; 32 Ib. 1921 This ad-
mlnistrator's sale was made in January
1851, and this suit brought in October,
1870, which lapse is bar to recovery OF
the husband. If the heirs were under
age ut the time of the conveyance, to
maintain this suit, they must have ten
dered back at least, the consideration to
Wright. III Tex. 421.] Wright having
title to the land by estOppel, as against
Miltower and the heirs OF Bowerman, the
court did not err in rendering judgment
| qu1eting the appellees In their right TO
and possession of said land. Affirmed.
| Watts, @.
A. Jernigan ct al. VS.. VIM. Williams
error from Brown county.-That the de-
fendant in error was a freedman, is not
shown by the record, except where the
clerk inserts after the name of the plain
tin, in one certificate, the letters r. NJ.
O.. A plea to the disability to maintain
| THIS suit, should have been presented IN
the court below prior to the answer 20
the merits. 1t comes too late when pre-
sented for the first time on appeal. Ii
was objected to The person of defendant
in error, that as freedman of color, he
could not acquire land by pre-emption
until the act OF August y, 1870; and that
his possession of the land must have COM
menced before the passage OF that act.
survey from no fault of his, If the de-
PENDANTS had notice of settlement, they
had all the notice the registration
could have given them. So that
the survey was not actually rec
orded, is unimportant. The declara-
tion OF third party that went upon the
land as tenant of the plaintiff, made
whlle such party was on the land, was
admissible. Neither plaintiff nor de-
fendant having patent, as between the
two, the formers equities were superior
Affirmed.-Delany, q.
Jesse r. Bond and wife VS.. A. A. ELL
son ct al; appeal from Caldwell county.
The statute [P. ID. 6S34] exempts from
forced sale the household and kitchen
furniture OF the family, used by them as
family, and it does not protect the
furniture of hotel which was used for
the accommodation of guests. The
family's apartments in this case were
connected with the hotel by a platform,
and doubtless the furniture of private
family would not be subject to execution
because boarderD were received into the
house. But hotel furniture is not ex-
empt because, the keeper is the head of q
family. Affirmed. d.-Delany, C.