Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-12-19

ship was the INTRODUCTION Oi uVSiVN VI
the district court Of Grimes county vest
ing in Atcheson as the heir OF Mrs Buck-
lev an undivided half OF the land. Held,
that as the defendant was not a party 10
that decree he is not bound by the adiudi-
cation as to heirshlp. Freeman on JLdg-
ments 4l6,4l7. Nor does the fact that
the court mad jurisdiction of the parties
10 that suit and the subject matter, and
that the decree vested in Atcheson the IL
tic to The land, obyiate the necessity oil
proof Of his heirship in this case. The
decree was admissible, but not sufficient
to prove the heirship. Reversed and re-
manded Robertson, j.
New York, Texas & Mexico Railway
Company VS. G.. l.. Thurmond, appeal
from Victoria. While tax deeds are in
admissible as evidence of title without
proof Of iurisdctional prerequisites,
thew are admissible under n plea OF I'M
proyements in good faith, the rule being
that II the party honestly believed he had
title upon such reason as would fairy
convince'an ordinarily prudent and well
informed person, he will be entitled 10
his improvements. This Is a question OF
fact, aud while not holding that the eN-
cludcd deed was sufficient evidence To
show good faith, 1t was evidence proper
TO 70 10 the jury. Reversed and remand
ed. Opinion by Robertson j.
Minty Greer ct nj. vs. Il, B. G Howell,
appeal from Hood. In this case 1t was
held by the court below that tax deed to
ne Of any force must be proved TO be the
contamination of valid sale This was
correct. But the land was sold Tor state
and county taxes, aud the statement
OF facts shows that no proof was made OF
the levy OF county taxes. Held, that coun-
" taxes are required to be levied by the
commissioners court, aud the levy must
be proved, or the sale will not appear to
have been made for a legal demand, and
the court erred in holding that the deed
passed the title TO the land. Reversed and
remandcd Opinion by Robertson, j.
NJ 4. Mott VS.. Smelling, appeal from
San saba. party relying on tax deed
made as the consummatlun OF sale OF
land for st9te aud county taxes, must
prove valid leyyof the county taxes,
and without such proof beng made, it
was error to hold the tax deed valid. Re-
versed and remanded. Opinion by Rob
ertsOn, j.
II. J.,Moses vs.. Jno. McFarlan, appeal
from Burnet. Appellant claimed the land
under IL tax sale and deed, and In support
Ol llldl Chilli ulil lIiN uS NNlh'lA' wv At4N
rolls of the county for the year 1879, re-
"iting that 500 acres Of the survey had
been listed by the assessor as unrendered
land, and assessed to an unknown owner;
this was excluded by the court. Held, if
the tax roll was admissible as evidence OF
a valid listing and assessment, that offered
In this case contained no such description
as would lead to the Identification of the
land. Five hundred acres OF the G40-aCrc
survey was attempted to be listed and as
scsscd, From that DIES ription how
could the particular 800 acres be
found? What corner or point in any
OF the lines could be taken rs beginning
to determine anything with reference to
it? There is no question but that in adj
dltiOn to the description gwen In listing
and assessing land other matters OF
description may be given in the tax Decd
but when there Is no description given IN
listing and assessing, IL would seem clear
that such omission could not bc cured by
q description given IN the decd. Affirmed.
Opinion OF Watts, j., adopted.
d. K. FAINT y. \. o. Branin ct al, APP
peal from Live Oak. Appellant claimed
the four tracts of land in controversy
through Il tax deed, the sale being made
for delinquent taxes for 1875 under a Ger
tihcatc from the comptroller, act APP
proved August -, 1876. The certificate
of the comptroller was the only evidence
to show assessment Held, insufficient,
ns 1t does not show by whom the assess
menC was made, or by what authority
and how evidenced. The sale was made
In gross, that Is, the four tracts OF land
were sold in gross. Held, that this APP
poaring upon face OF the tax deed, 1t
seems clear for that reason the deed
must be considered void. Affirmed,
Opinion by Watts, j., adopted.
The state OF Texas vs., s. a. Thompson,
appeal from Preside, The authority of
the Encouragement to bring suits under
the act OF July S, 1879, and amendment of
April e, 1881, unqueStOnnbly depends
upon the advice and direction of the three
members of the land-fruud board, whose
duty it was to Investigate as to fraud
ulent purchases of public land.
Without such direction the suit
would be without authority. But
this question cannot be raised by special
exception to the petition, but is qucs-
tiou OF fact. Hence the petition Is not
defective, because there is no averment OF
the advice and direction of the members
OF the board. Ii does not affect the right
VI lil' otANN w lNNoNtl, puN wv uuthpllN1
OF the attorney, and this must be ques-
toned just as would the authority OF any
attorney assuming to represent u plaintiff
IN any other case.
Under the provision OF article us p.
c., 4 deputy surveyor cannot purchase
public land, directly or indirectly, aud
the acts of July, 1879, and April, 1881,
seem TO recognize the application of this
article Of the penal code to purchases
made under these acts.
Captains Fortunate Discovery.
Capt, Coleman, schooner Weymouth,
! plying between Atlantic City and New
/ NMrl,. had hnnn Irnmhlnl with n nnmmh so