The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-06-08
SYNOPSIS OF OPINIONS.
REPORTED Expressly for the STATESMAN. 7
supreme Court.

Grigsby ct al VS.. Peak; appeal from
Dallas county The following is a full
synopsis of the dissenting oral opinion of
Judge Stayton delivered May 30, 1882;
The action of the appellant not being
barred by the statute of limitation at the
time the ordinance of the constitutional
convention in 1866 declared that the time
which interviewed between the 2nd of
March, 1861, and the 2nd of September,
1866, should not be construed as valid
and not retroactive in character. Prior
to the time of the adoption of the cOnsti-
tuition of 1870, the full period of five
years, during which there was no suspeu-
sion of the running of the statu, of llmi.
tations by any law of this state had eX-
pred, and title to the properly in contro-
versy had thereby as fully vested in the
appellee, as though acquired by the most
solemn conveyance supported by valuable
consideration. Title SO having vested in
the appellee there was no power in the
constitutional convention which met in
1869, nor in the people, TO divest such Ii
: tie by an arbitrary exercise of Legislative
power, and section 43, art. IL Of the con-
stitution of 1910, If made 10 apply to
causes of action then barred, is but an at
tempted exercise of such power The
NTH amendment to the constitution
OF the United States, which provided that
no person shall be deprived of life, lib
erty or property without due process of
law, has been held to impose a limita-
ton upon the power of the federal gov
eminent, but to impose no limitation upon
the power OF the states !, but that portion
OF the fourteenth amendment to the con-
stitution of the United States, which de-
clares Nor shall any state deprive
any person of life, liberty or property,
without due process of law, applies di-
rectiy to the states, and inhibils any leg
islation, whether by a constitutional con-
vention or a state legislature, through
which any person can be deprived of
property, by a simple declaration that the
law under which title 10 the property
vested, shall be deprived of the effect
which 1t had at he time of inveslure of
title. IL was intended by the fourteenth
amendment TO place the same protection
against retroactive legislation, around
property, which is thrown around per
sonal liberty by hat provision of the con
stitution of the United States which de-
clares ; mo state shall pass
any. er post .fdct0 law" No other law
than that of the state in which il is sit.
uated can control the conveyance
OF vesture of title to real es-
tate, and the acts of congress
known as the reconstruction acts cannot
make that true, by declaring it to beso,
which was not true in fact; for we know
judicially aud historically that the courts
of Texas were open in the years 1866 and
1867, and that any citizen for a wrong
done to his property could have redress
BY due course of law, and the condition
OF the country furnishes no excuse for
the failure Of the appellant TO institute
suit for her properly before the bar of
the statute cut of the right.
T. j. Norvell ct al VS.. Callahan county;
appeal from Callahan county.-This ease
was dismissed at a former day.of this
court for want of prosecution, the appel
lants having failed to file briefs therein.
A motion was made land resisted) to rein
state. Under oath the motion states that
the briefs. in the case were prepared and
forwarded ia due time to have reached
the court at proper season. They did
reach the court, but too late. The mo-
ton is resisted and supported by the aili-
davit of the district clerk, stating that no
copy of the brief has ever been filed in
the district court below. The appellants
do not deny this fact Held, the failure
10 file copy of the brief in the court be-
low is fatal to the bearing Of the appeal,
as Il Is specially required by the rules,
and upon this ground the motion to re-
instate is overruled Per curiam.