The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-06-27

] ioou county, Opinion by Stsyton M
ue'er'nlnation Of the rights OF tba r.s,is ~
I'VE ueienSe upon the proper constrnr ~ ~ =
~ .a"s retailing the sale of school ia
"g'u lie Constitution confirms IN 49,.
: S''eTs' c'unnts, lh- trls 10 mo .ch,,l'
anus winch hdi been mi sht be- I. ran,,,I ;,
,uv", ana authorized The couniles -
sen 81 lands. For reference To prov;s
son ol me rights Of persons to bny
&c constitution, art /, sec. g. Ravisec
statutes fSf, These provisions of lhs Ia a.
s;t the PRIOR nights OF actual settlers
49, r;S,ht,ns on school lands, to purchase. That
So, So eannot exist II made TO depend solely
80, totiner resluehce upon the lands by
S Some o'ner person through whom an appli.
himself must be an actual settler residinn
on the land, to acquire the prier rish, ,6
purchase. Appellees, nor either of them
ever hved upon the land which they
ciaim under the bond title. nor
uiu any person ever reside upon
II, Appellant was an actual settler. resi-.
uent upon the tract of land belonging 10
Mllsm county, therefore his right to pur-
csase was superior to appellees. The right
OF neither party could be affected by snv
cialm which either has asserted under tho
Donu patent. No other actual settler resi-.
dent upon the land made application 10
puy any part OF tina. which appellant
sought TO purchase, by his actual residencs
upon the land, therefore, he had the rirht
10 purchase the li0 acres which he sonSht
TO purchase. Held, further, the word set.
tiement as used in the consti-
tuition is meant such land as per.
son actually settled on, as residing ON
the land may declare an intention TO an
proprlate including his improvements, the
whole not to exceed $50 acres. The county
owning the land is given discretion as to
the time and manner OF sale, and the price
W De paiu, out these things being determ.
ineu and the land offered for sale, the coun-
mas no power to refuse to sell TO the act.
ual settler residing upon such school land
the full area which the law declares such
settler has the right to buy, nor can anyone
not having some right as an actual SETTLER
interpose any obstacle to the settler acouir-
ing the land which the law entities
nm to purchase. Judgment reversed and
remanded, with instructions that if appel-
lant snail within reasonable time pay ap.
peiiees such sum as they paid Milan
county, with interest, that Judgment he
rendered for him il not, that Judgment be
rendered against him. Reversed and re-.
manded.
Smyth ct al. VS.. Veal, from Limestone
county. Opinion by Delaney, l., adopted
In lS'9 William Anglin located his head
right certificate OF one-third of a league on
land now in Limestone county. In lSi5 he
conveyed a part of said location to one
Andrews with full covenants of warranty
describing. the land sold by metres and
lnds. In 1851 he conveyed the balance
to Abram Anglin in like manner, the Ger
ll1cate still remaining in the land office.
some years afterwards, VIM. Anglin dis
covering that he had located the certificate
upon an older grant purchased the entire
one-thlrd OF league from the owner OF the
older grant and it passed to his vendees
under his covenants of warranty and they
and their vendees hold it to this day. In
lSil, VIM. ADglin, the original grantee of
the certificate had located 1t upon lands in
Wichita county. Appellants claim that by
reason OF these transactions, they are the
owners, not only # the land IN Line
stone county, but also of the land
located in Wichita county Judgment
against them. Hell, correc When
Angin for the benefit OF
his vendees, bought II The superior title, he
was discharged from all his obligations Of
his contract, and might dispose of the Ger.
t'fcate AZ he chose. Held, further, the lie.
gal title of the certificate was in Anglln
when he sold to appellee. There Is no evl.
dence OF any know edge on the part OF the
appellee of appellants CLAIM. The record
In Limestone county of the deeds, under
which appellants claim could not operate
as constructive notice TO the purchaser of
the certificate, which had all the time re.
manned in the land office. Ii plaintiffs or
their vendors had desired to give notice of
their Claims to the certificate, they should
have filed it in the land office; (Baggett vs..
Mckenzie, 2S Tex, 5sD. Angiin having
the legal title of the certificate and the pos.
session, q purchase from him without
notice, would take good title; (Love VS..
Berry, 90 Tex. 372). Affirmed.
Jones VS.. Lakewood ct al from Falls
county. Opinion by Delany, ] Adopted. Suit
in trespass to try title. Both parties claim
Plaintiff introduced his evidence and restt d.
Defendants introduced no evidence. The
court instructed the jury to find for defend
ants. Plaintiff introduced: |. Orders of the
county commissioners court appointing A.
ii Merlell agent aud authorizing him to
sell the lots. =. Deed from said Merrell to
j. j. Gray for the lot in controversy, dated
April 3lSt, 1851, acknowledged and record
ed 6. Deed from the sheriff of Falls
county to Jones for the lot
in question, dated May 3rd, 1852,
which deed purported to have been made
pursuant to the sale by the sheriff by vir-
tue OF an execution issued on judgment
rendered March 6, 1852, by David Barton,
by notice of precinct No. 1 of said county,
in favor of DOhbs against j. j. Gray, exc
cution issued March 10, 1852, levied
April l, 1852, and deed dated same
day. After the production of the
deed and before plaintiff had proven
the loss of the justices docket, they OF
fered to prove the existence and contents of
the Judgment under which they claimed,
! Objection thereto was sustained. Court
then adjourned at noon. When the court
met again proved the destruction OF
the courthouse, together with dockets,
ETC., but failed to introduce any
evidence of the judgment, execution, ETC.,
and closed, This brings up the only ques-
ton of the case. Held: The court dia not
err in instructing the jury to find for de
PENDANTS. In the course OF trial much
must be contided to the discretion OF the
pre- siding Judge. The law presumes that
he will act Justly without passion, caprice
or prejudice. Unless, therefore, the ruling
OF the Judge is maniiestly wrong, the ludg-
ment should be affirmed Appellant
c,ud have presented their case on this mo-
ton for new trial in such way as might
have enabled this court to act upon 1t ad'
visedly.
But the record does not show what they in.
tended to prove by the witness whose evil
dence was excluded, or, In fact, that such
witness knew anything about the subject.
We cannot say there was any abuse oil dis