The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-05-24
uHIGHER COURTS.
SUPREME COURT.

+, B. Harrol ct al. VS.. q. b. AIRING
ton, from Wheeler county. Willie, C. /.
Where IL is alleged in the petition that
the plaintiffs were not residents of
Greer county, but this was denied by
the answer, and defendant ayerred that
the object of plaintiffs suit was to
evade the payment OF taxes legally as
sessed against them as citizens and
property holders of Greer county, the
allegation of residence ia directly put
in Issue, and no proof being offered in
this respect, the allegations of tho petit
ton are not sustained, and the question
as presented by appellants, i. O.: Can
the personal properly OF a nonresident
of an unOrgan!zed county be taxed
by the county to which SUCH
unOrganized county is attached
for Judicial purposes, does not arise
upon the record The remaing question
is as TO the sufficiency Of the petition
and bond for removal to the United
States circuit court,under the act of 1875.
Held: 1t has been expressly decided by
the United STATES circuit courts for the
Northern and southern districts of New
Y ork that bond which does not con-
tain condition for the payment of costs
is insufficient under the act OF congress
Of March 8, 1875, providing for removal
Of causes from the state to the Federal
courts. From decisions Of other circuit
courts it would seem that they would
hold in accordance with the above rul-
iDgs when the question was pre-
sented. They treat the fill
ing of good bond
conditioned as the statute requires, as a
condition precedent to the right of re-
moyal, and held, in effect, that unless
the requirements Of the act are substan-
TALLY complied with, the power of the
state courts TO hear and determine the
course remains undisturbed. While
there is line of decisions of the United
States circuit courts TO the effect that
after q case has been removed to one Of
these courts IL will not be remanded be-
cause OF defective bond or partition,
but that either may be amended under
the direction of the court, the extent Of
their ruling is that if the state court has
accepted the bond and ordered the re-
moval and the record has been filed in
the United States court, the removal is
complete and the course will DO
retained, though an amendment
may be necessary to make the bond COM
ply with the requisites of the act. In
neither line of decisions is it held that
the state court is bound TO accept Il
bond rendered substantially defective
by the omission of an important condi-
ton. The bond being defective in not
containing the prescribed conditions for
the payment of costs, the court did not
err in refusing the removal. No new
bond with proper conditions being ten
dered before or at the time the case was
called for trial, and the application to
postpone the case for another term not
being supported by affidavit, and it not
being made known to the court in any
other way, that good bond would be
given If the delay was allowed, the
court did not err In refusing to
postpone the case. Whether or not
Greer county is part of the state of
Texas depends upon where the north
orn boundary line of this state dividing
1t from The Indian territory should be
located. This is question TO be settled
by the political ana not the judicial de-
partment Of the state government, 1t
IL judicially known to us that the politi-
cal authority have always claimed the
territory comprising Greer county as a
part OF The domain of our state, and
nave exercised acts of control over it,
such as organizing it into county and
attaching IL to another of our counties
for judicial purposes. Until the politi-
cal department ceases 10 exercise such
authority, we must treat this county as
subject TO the jurisdiction of the state of
Texas. (See the case in full in Texas
Law Review of May 20, 1851 Affirmed.
Jas. p. Hector james VS.. II. Gan ey;
from Guadalupe county. Walker, p.j
Adopted. The beginning corner OF a
survey is of no higher dignity or inn
pOrtance than any other, and where the
natural objeCs called for Is found at any
corner, the lines of the survey may be
determined by commencing at that
point instead OF the beginning corner.
Reversed and remanded.
ID. II. Fent va. John Atkins; from Live
Oak county Conclusions of Walker,
p. j., adopted. Appellant sued appellee
by trespass TO try title for the land in
controversy claiming the same by pur-
chase from the state under the act of
July l4,lS70, providing Tor sale of a por-
ton OF tho vacant public domain
and for which he had patent. Appellee
claimed the land by deed from a. w.
Mudd, who claimed that no appropria-'
ted II under the statute granting home
stead donations TO actual settlers on the
vacant public domain. judgement for
defendant, where the matter contained
in petition Is not irrelevant motion to
strike out will bo considered as a general
demurrer. IL Is not error to admit tes-
timony offered in support OF plea
merely deteotiYe and liable TO be held
bad on exception. There was no error
in the Judgment rendered and it is af-
tirmed
d. X. FAINT w. j. G. Bossley; from
Live Oak count. Walker, p. i.
Adopted. This was an action OF tres
pass to try title brought by appellee
against appellant 10 recover tract of
land. Judgment was rendered for the
appellee for hYe-eights or 500 acres of the
tract Rnd for Sl2S damages Tor use and
occupation. Appellant filed motion for
new trial, which being overruled, he APP
pealed W this court, The transcript was
demanded by appellee, and was
duly filed In this court. APP
| pellant has not filed any
transcript, nor has he filed an assign
ment OF errors. Under the statute and
rites of the supreme court, appellant
has named, by his failure to assign err
rors, all errors save those that may be
fundamental. He having failed to file
the transcript, II was competent for
appellee TO file same ON or before the
first day Of the assignment. This the
appellee has done, and no fundamental
error being apparent, the Judgment is