Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-01-28

mandei upon the report of Commits
sioner Watts. Willie, c. j.
". T. Robertson W.. Sarah ]. Tuck
er. et al, from Hill county-Purchase
Of land in good faith, believing that
that his vendors Were the heirs-at-law
OF the party TO whom the patent
issued, and that he was then dead
would constitute such an apparent
title as to support recovery for the
value of improvements III tde in good
faith. For the purpose OF sustaining
the plea Of three years limitations,
title oy inheritance is as regular and
e1tectual as title 10y written convey
ance. Color of title to sustain the plea
OF three years limitations must be real
title, while To sustain "A recovery for
Improvements, apparent title is sufii-
cient. That the power of attorney by
virtue of which his deed was executed
had not been properly signed by Ger
tain married women, was not an
omission fatal TO the claim for i'm
provemeuts. The rule is, that to Gu.
title the claimant To compensation for
improvements he must have open, no
torious possession Of the land for Mt
least one year. The facts were suffi-
in charging in effect that appellant
had failed TO show such possession as
would entitle him to recover for i'm.
provements placed upon the land.
Reversed and remanded upon report
of Commissioner Watts. Willie, q. j.
NJ. d. Herring VS.. Caggins & Parks,
from McLennan county-Under the
provisions of the general laws of 1879,
chapter ll6. page l26, the dispositions
OF witness in a civil case may be
read in evidence, even though the wit.
ness Is accessible to process of the
court, and this too without support.
ing affidavit as provided in article 2234
OF the revised statutes. The note de-
clared on was executed September 6,
lS15,and made payable six months after
date. The petition was filed October
:, 1850. To avoid the statutes of limi-
tations of four years plaintiff alleged
that on August II, 1876, AT req uest OF
Anderson and Herring, and for valu.
able consideration, they extended
time of payment to September |, 1877.
me evidence was that subsequent to
the maturity of the note, payment
was demanded of Herring, and that
he requested for the principal, Ander.
son, an extension of time and that
the holders take n deed of trust from
Anderson, securing payment, which
they dld, the deed of trust providiL o
for foreclosure in default of payment
Held, that the mere extension of time.
al Herrlng's request, was not euuiva.
lent TO an agreement on his part, fix
ing the maturity of the note. that
would, as to him, stop the running
oflimitations. When an action may
appear to be barred by law of limita-
tlon no acknowledgment OF the lust
ness oil the claim, made subsequent To
us maturity is admissible in evidence
TO take the case out of the operation
OF limitations, unless the agreement
be IN writing and signed by the party
charged thereby. Affirmed as TO An.
derson, and reversed and rendered in
layor OF Herring, upon report of Com
missioner Watts. Willie, {. j.
w. I. Allen VS.. Edward pierson
from Falls county-It is the settled
doctrine IN this state that mere mad.
eqracy OF price, unattended by fraud
OF ;rreguiarities conducting TO the same
WIZ not authorize the annulling of q
sheriii sale, but the authorities agree
III hoiding that when the price is gross
~ inadequate, slight additional facis
showing fraud, irregularity or other
circumstances calculated to prevent
the property from bringing sometime
IKE It's reasonable value, might he snf.
hclent TO avoid the sale. The statute
which directs how levy shall be
made when the property is not pointed
out by the defendant in execution is
directory, hence charge to the effect
that II the consideration paid for the
property was grossly Inadequate, and
II the defendant in the writ owned per.
sonar property and wild land ma
chained, and had no opportunity TO
point them out for levy, then this would
entltle him 10 verdict and decra.
annnliing the sale. was error. The in.
strlclions should have gone further
anu submitted the fact. Whether tha
lrieguiarity conduced TO the gross in
adequacy OF the price paid. Ifthe nm.
peiiant, In good filth, placed valnahta
Improvements upon the land and was
mn ny, iTnorant Of irrsgulnrities on ti,.,
pstt oil the officer, aud knew noti,,nee
Ola suit to contest the sale ihan
court OF equity would refuse Ia ANIL
.ne SAFE, except upsh the terms oS No.
,heht Tor improvements. Lis ,end'g.
Isa doctrine which obtains from, . 80
wee OF citation, and not from he fI irr
OF The suit. Whether right or ,yrnn s
| II a requested charge refused Inc I'M. s.'a;'