The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-06-26
THE COURTS.
SUPREME CoURL.

from Wise county; Milburn WACO
Co. VS.. Hammer, from Travis count.
Sabine VS.. Goodman, from Mitche
county; Glenn VS.. state, from Frat
county; Dentherage VS.. state, frol
'I Runnels county; Whiting VS.. stat
from Falls comfy; Wilson VS.. stat
from johnson county.
Reversed and dis miSsed-PoWell V:
state, from Atascosa county; Bow
man VS.. state, from Coleman count!
!, Dismissed = Belo VS.. state, froT
Wilson county; Philips ct al. VS.. New
land, from Ell Paso county, Texas Elk
press company VS.. Benedick, from Nc
Ian county; Roach VS.. state, fror
Walker county.
N Reversed and remanded - Annie
Wilson VS.. state, from Dallas county
Cartwright VS.. state. from Wise coun
ty; Missouri Pacific railroad compan!
VS.. Hewett, from Dallas county; Rod
dy VS.. state, from BeXar county; Nc
DoWell VS.. Nicholson, from Jack coun
ty; Mcdowell ct al. VS.. Collier, from
Jack county; Looney VS.. Tillman, from
s Mitchell county; Henson VS.. Martin
ct al, from Mitchell county; Calves
ton, Harrisburg 81 San Antonio rail
Z way company VS.. G1ldea, from Kin
ney county.
, Motions for Te-hearing were over
ruled in two cases: Kain VS.. State,
from Dallas county, and in the case
of Weeden VS.. Martin, from Robertson
county.
Application for habeas corpus was
argued by Hon. G.. Wash. Jones in
the case of the two Miles brothers, of
Elgin, one of whom, Robert, is charg-
ed with killing negro, and the other,
Walter, with killing young Taylor.
he case Wos submitted.
DISTRICT COURT.
In the case of Mrs. Buntin VS.. Thos.
Jones. a suit for four acres OF land
south of the city, judgment was given
for Mrs. Buntin.
Motion for rehe airing was overruled
in the case Of :. j. Adams VS.. II. u L.
G. Railway Company, and notice OF
appeal was given.
Jose A. Manchaca and others VS.. S
| w. Punchard and others, from Milan
county. Affirmed. Opinion by spec
/ ial Judge Bassett (see case below
Jose A. Manchaca and others vs.. 9.
| p. Field and others, from McLennan
county. Affirmed. Opinion by spec
ial Judge w. II. Bassett, sitting with
special Sudge L. S. MaXey and Associ
ate Justice Stayton, OF the supreme
court.
This suit was brought Dec. %, 1881,
by appellant to recover OF Field and
others an undivided half of four
leagues of land, part of ten league
survey granted by the government OF
Coahuila and Texas to Jose David
Sanches. The case was tried by a
iurv. and resulted in verdict and
Judgment for the defendants, from
which the plaintiffs appeal. The
plaintiffs are the descendants and
heirs of Maria Doratia Sanches, de-
ceased, who was the wife of the
grantee, Jose David Sancbes.
On the 10Th of March, 1881, Sanches
applied to the governor of Coahulla
and Texas for a concession of eleven
leagues of land under the oath article |
of the colonization law OF March "a,
1925. The concession was issued |
March IS, 1881. The final title to ten |
leagues, of which the four leagues in |
controversy are part was extended |
in the,name of Jose David Sanches on |
the Bird of October, 1888. Mrs. Sanches |
died in April, 1882, between the date
of the concession and that OF the |
grant,and the plaintiffs claim through |
her a community interest In the
premises.
The defendants contest he right
of the plaintiffs to recover
on the grounds: l. That MIS-.
Sanches had no such right under the
concession as would entitle her heirs
to claim an interest in the land which
was selected and granted under 1t al
ter her death. 2. That whatever IN
terest she may have had IN the con-
cession, was diverted by the lnstru-
ment called power OF attorney, ex-
ecuted during her life time by ner
husband to one Jose PeTrlda. D.
That if Mrs. Sanches and Der heirs
had any interest in the laid it was
Invested by a sale made in 1889, Ter
the payment of community debts by |
Sanches to William Punchard, under
whom the defendants deraign title.
1t is obvious, says Judge Bassett,
that if either of the foregoing propo-
sitions be sustained, the Judgment for
the defendants must be affirmed.
Several questions are considered by |
the court.
l. Did Mrs. Sanches have such a
community interest in the concession
granted during the marriage OF her
self and husband, as would entltle |
her heirs to claim the land selected |
and granted to the husband alter her
death. Held. The concession having |
money value and being the supJec9
of sale, was property in which Mrs:
Sanches had a community interest,"
which descended to her heirs at her
death, and which attached to the title
subsequently extended in the name OF
her husband.
Assuming that Mrs. Sanches had
community interest which Wotio
attach to the land when subsequently
granted, and of which her heirs could
avail themselves, it becomes necessary
consider the effect upon her rights and
those of her heirs of the Instrument
called power of attorney executed by
her husband during their coverture.
Held: The instrument executed by
Saaches to Perrida, though IN from a
power of attorney was IN effect ssle
of the concession and OF the rlgnt 10
the land which might be acquired
under it; and that the superior title
was thereby diverted out OF Sanches
and his wife so as to leave no interest,"
to be inherited by her heirs at her
death. By the endorsement OF the IN
strument by Perrida to Frost morn,
and the contract TO convey TO MIN CIie
superior title to the concession and TO
the land when granted was vested In
| Thorn. There was no error IN the
charge of the court authorizing Che
| iury in their discretion to presume d
sale of the land from Frost Thorn TO
| VIM. Punchard, and the evidence sus-
tains the finding of the jury presum-
ing such sale.
The defendants claiming under
Punchard. took possession about 1866,
and have been in possession ever
since. Frost Thorn died about, 1913.
1t does not appear that either ne OF
his heirs have ever set up any claim
| title to the land. AS against them, SO
far as appears, the defendants could
claim title by limitation. The plant
ifs suit was instituted after the
LAPSE of more than forty years from
the date of the deed to Punchard,
twenty-five years after the institution
of suits and exercise OF other acts OF
ownership, and after fifteen years OF
open and notorious possession by the
defendants, claiming under the Fun
chard title. The Spanish civil law III
force prior to 1889, recognized We !,
as well as written grants to larbal
The facts in connection with the
great lapse of time, lead to the we'll
nigh irresistible inference that the