The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-05-18
cotinT DECISIONS
s,sopsls ~ OpinIcns 81 the Commissioners
AZ A..eaisAAuatls Term, 1884

Of Appeais--Auatis Term, 1854
The state W. Pedro SAILS 81 ali appeal
from Travis county Confirmation OF uhrc' /
lesanes of land sought under act of August
IS. 1870. Reference Is made to the opinion
of Roberts, c. T., In AZ Texas, 90 S2'' Tor |
full discussion Of the above act. The rf
torney general having waived tine accepted
service of Undergraduates, aud agreed TO the
nppointment OF special commissioner.
Ills failure to cross does not prevent APP
nellee's use Of the evidence. The omis-
Sion of the officers 1urat to
the certificate OF the commissioner
is cured by amendment by the o,ilcer uhcc,
leave of the court, Citizens and 70 eigreTs
are both included in the colonization Law
Of Tamauli ,as of December To- 1926, the
former simply being preferred. p. ID. 1t3
Article IS OF that law only gave the rlgh,
TO such quantity OF land us ire party II lSht
desire. not 10 exceed five leagues. Such
construction results fron the context and
plain import of the language, ard was
given by the then officers charged with its
execution. The record (p. lO) does not sus-
tain the position urging reversal, that thls
land was appraised AT $40 per league, and that
tie lowest limit was fixed by law at $50.
The statement in the eNpediente that three
leagues had been appraised at $40, whlch
with the dispatch had directed to the gov
ernor, being recital by public Officer IN
discharge
tain the iirding of the court in that
particular. Only when the grant was
actually issued by the execution
that the order was made directing the
alcalde to put the grantor IN possession
This claim originated in 1872, founded IN
good faith; the expediente contains all re-
uuisites of the law of 1926 aad the payment
of the purchase money, and 1t is shown
that the continuing in possession by the
appellee and his father, was with the OH
cias of Tamaulipas considered equitable
title The destruction of the records OF
the state at Tamaulipas III lcG5 DIS
abled appellee from exhibiting by The rec
ord action taken by the execution upoh
the expediente. Act of 1870 includes such
right as this, which would, by the law OF
1926, have matured into perfect grant hau
not the sovereignty vested in the repuolc
of Texas. Affirmed. watts, c.
Elizabeth Wilson ct al. vs. e. W: Wright
ct all appeal from Lamar county. Ihat lle
surviving husband petitioned the appoint
ment of another without, reasons
therefor, as administrator, (under Hark-
ley's digest, $685. was an irregularity mat
does not avail the appellants in this collat-
eral proceeding, nor IL any other at TINS
late date 1t is sufficient that there was
evidence of the death of the wife at the date
of the appointment of the admln'strato' :,
though the evidence was conflicting.
and the court found the other way
While the deceased did not have
fixed domicle in Texas at the time OF her
death, the administration was properly
opened III Lamar county, where she owned
really according to the statutes then IN
force The entering of the amount OF the
purchase price as an approved reditagainsS
the estate, is sufficient to vest title. e.
Texas, $40, not in point.) The order OF
sale and the order of confirming tie
same sufficiently describe the land
sold, when taken in connection with the
inventory, and other existing facts. Vide
j. G. Robertson ct al, VS.. s. Il. Johnson ct
al, decided at the present term. The con
yeyance of the certificate a. any time before
the patent Issued transferred the land. 40
Tex. 566; 80 ILL.,, 1872. This administrators
sale was made in January, 1881, and this
suit brought in October, 1870, which lapse
is bar TO the recovery OF the husband.
al the time of the conveyance, TO
maintain this suit, they must have ten
dered back at least, the consideration to
Wright, az Tex, 42l). Wright having title
. to the land by estoppel, IS against
court did not err in rendering judgment
uueting the appellees in their right to and
possession OF sad land. Affirmed, Watts, c..
A. Jernigan ct al. vs. William Williams;
error IRON Brown county. That tie de-
PENDANT in GRO was a freedman, is not
shown by the record except where the clerk
inserts after the name of plaintiff in one
certificate, the let ers f. Nj. 9. "A plea to
the disability to maintain this suit should
have been presented in the court
the merits. 1t comes too late
when presented for the first time on APP
peal. IL was objected to the person of the
defendant in error, that, as freedman OF
color, he could not acquire land by pre-
emption until tie act of August II, 1870 4;
and that his possession Of the land must
have commenced before the passage of that
act Since the plaintiff failed TO record The
survey from no fault of his, If the defend
, ants Lesiee Of TIE settlement, they had
all notice the registration could
-46ave given them. So that the survey was
not actually recorded, is unimportant. The
declaration of a. third that went upon the
land as tenant of the p'aintih, made
while such was on the land, was admissi-
BILE. Neither plaintiff nor defendant bav-
ing patent, as between the two the for
mers equities were superior. Affirmed.
Delany, G.
Jesse r. Bond and wife VS.. A. A. Ellison
ct all appeal from Caldwell county. The
statute (P. ID. 6S3I) exempts fom forced
sale the household and kitchen furniture OF
the family, used by them as q family, and
ii does not protect the furniture of hotel,
which was used for the accommodation
of guests. The family's apartments in this
case we're connected with the hotel by Il
platform, and, doubtless, the furniture of
private family would not be subject TO exc
cution, because boarders were received into
W honep Rut hotel furniture " not pv-
empt, because the keeper is the head of u
family. Delany,c.
II. V. Tompkins VS.. J. b. Hart; from Dali
las county. Where the damages claimed
results prima facie as a matter of LEGAL in
fe o zee from the facts stated, IL is sufficient
All legal damages must, whether the action
be in contract or In fact naturally result
from tie act o. default complained Of, and,
at Rough the law In certain cases permits
the recovery of such damages as are physi-
cally secondary, or consequential, yet they
must. I'm legal contemplation, be also its
approximate result. Where such result IS
necessary, or Is legally impaired by the
facts, the damages are general and need not
be specially set forth in the pleading; other
wise they must. Affirmed. Walker, p. c.
A. T.. Morris vs.. J.. NJ Montgomery a
Co, from Washington county. Where no
other exceptions are taken 20 petition /
than BY general demurrer, and that falling |
20 be presented for the courts action, Il |
will be deemed az having been waived, |
though the petition contains such general /
averfnefits as would be obnoxious 10 special |
exceptions, yet they may be sufficient at |
verdict and Judgment. There being no /
statement Of facts. the presumption u the |
evidence was sufficient 10 support The judg- /
ment A paper copied into the record,
which Il neither sig0ed By the judge, |
counsel, or the parties, cannot be
considered statement Of facts.
Where there are no pleading TO supply
the Judgment u will be reversed, although l
there are no statement IL facts or bill Of eE-
ceptions. The general rule which pre-
scribes the mode whereby the Wiie's sepa-
rate estate may be affected By contract APP
plies 70 contracts for improving her sepa-
80 - a. a. wrrlI "a n OfHrr