The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-05-09
COKUT DECISIONS.
synopsis of Opinions of Commissioners OF
Appcals-Austin Term, 1882


The state vs.. Pedro Sais ct al; appeal
from Travis county Confirmation of three
leagues Of land sought under act of August
To- 1870. Reference is made to the opinion
OF Roberts, c. j., in AZ Texas, $50, 1921 for
full discussion of the above act. The at
torney general having waived time, accepted
service of inteorogatores, and agreed to the
appointment of n special commissioner.
His failure to cross does not prevent APP
pellec's use Of the evidence. The omis-
'i)n of the officers iurat to
the certificate of the commissioner
is cured by amendment by the officer under
leave of the court. Citizens and foreigners
are both included in the colonization law
of Tamaulil,as Of December Is, 1896, the
former simply being preferred. +. ID. 7S3.
Article 20 of that law only gave the right
to such quantity of land rs the party might
desire, not to exceed five leagues. Such q
construction results from the context and
plain import of the language, and was
given by the then officers charged with its
execution. The record Up. 10Y does not sus-
tain the position urging reversal, that this
land was appraised at slipper league, and that
the lowest limit was fixed by law at $50.
The statement in the expediente that three
leagues had been appraised at 800, which
with the dispatch had directed to the gov
the discharge of official duty, should sus-
tain the finding 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 1882, founded in
good faith: the expediente contains all re-
quisites of the law Of 1896 and the payment
of the purchase money, and it is shown
that the continuing in possession by the
appellee and his father, was with the OIL
Gals Of Tamauipas considered equitable
title. The destruction of the records of
the state at Tamaulipas IN 1865 dis
abled appellee from exhibiting by the rec.
ord, action taken by the execution upon
the expedientc. Act Of $50 includes such
u right rs this which would by the law of
1926, have maturcd into u perfect grant, had
not the sovereignty vested in the republic
of Texas. Affirmed. Watts, c.
Elizabeth Wilson ct al. VS.. G.. W. Wright
ct al; appeal from Lamar county. That the
surviving husband petitioned the appoint
mcnt of another without reasons
therefor, as administrator, (under Hark-
ley's digest, 005). was an irregularity that
does not avail the appellants in this colat.
eral proceeding, nor IL any other at this
late date. IL is sufficient that there was
evidence of the death of the wife at the date
of the appointment Of the administrator,
though the evidence was conflicting.
and the court found the other way.
While the deceased did not have n
fixed domicile In Texas at the time of her
de ath, the administration was properly
opened III Lamar county, where she owned
realty, according to the statutes then in
force. The entering of the amount of the
purchase price as an approved credit against
the estate, is sufficient TO vest title. 90
Texas, $40, not in point) The order of
sale and the order of confirming the
same, sufficiently describe the land
sold, when taken in connection with the
inventory, and other existing facts. Vide
j. Z. Robertson ct al, VS.. =. II. johnson ct
al, decided at the present term. The con.
veyance OF the certificate at any time before
the patent issued transferred the land. i5
Tex. 566; - ILL.,, 1922. This administrators
sale was made In January, 1851, and this
suit brought in October, 1870, which lapse
Il n bar to the recovery of the husband.
IL the heirs were under age
at the time of the conveyance, TO
maintain this suit, they must have ten.
Wright, az Tex, i2l) Wright having title
to the land by estoppel, as against
Mithawer and the heirs OF Bawerman, the
court did not err in rendering judgment
quoting the appelloes In their right to and
possession OF said land. Affirmed, Watts, G.
a. Jernigun ct al. vs. William Williams,
error from Brown county. That the de.
PENDANT in error was u freedman, is not
shown by the record except where the clerk
inserts after the name of plaintiff In one
certificate, the letters +, NJ, G. A plea to
thc disability to maintain this suit should
have been presented. In the court
AL swt H..