Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-03-08
THE HIGHER COURTS.
|ssl,lons Rendered ut the Galveston sitting
OF tho Supreme Court.

stslons Rendered ut the Galveston sitting
n OF tho Supreme Court.
81 Thomas G. Nye ys.J. b. Hawkins ct al,
Mpal from MatagorGa. This cause is
second time before the court 100 Tex,
\ Tie action when here before was
HsMss TO try title. fter a reversal, the
dion was amended. Neither asserts
ii defendants have ever had possession
10y part Of the land claimed by him,
fthst they have ever asserted clam
into Held, that petition which does
allege an adverse possession or
imin such an action is bad, and sub
ITO general demurrer.
H. Ms evident that there was an intention
Hbandon the action Of trespass 10 try
kand TO establish boundary line, and
lrs Of equity will not entertain
Mikdictl0n in cases Of confusion of
#ndaries upon the ground that the
lndareS are In controversy; but re-
M that there should be some equity
"itnnduced by the act of the parties;
. as some particular circumstance
hAudi or some confusion where one
4 Son has plowed too near another; or
ne gross negligence, omission or mis-
aact, ON the part OF the person whose
q NsAl duty II Is to preserve or perpetu-
ne Boundaries Story's Eq. Gl5;
M 81 1855; Adams Eq., 237; Tyler
Il Sonndares, 25G--2s0. In this case
4 isnothing shown in reference TO
Ioadnci, situation or relation OF the
d |asa 10 each other or TO the land,
4 81 gives rise to any particular equity
Nfues hold separate and distinct
70 different tracts OF land, and IL
. Nered that the true boundary
sui be Identified by natural objects,
!. ~ plaintiff Is able thus to aver the
n ocailly of the line, aud that the nat.
Y ogects called for in a deed still cN-
x ~ does so aver, he then shows a
n IA which, within the meaning Of the
Y ny confusion of boundary can exist,
!. We court did not err in sustaining
Il .etal demurrer 10 the amended pc
"A Aflrmed. opinion 10y Stayton, j.
y a. Harm ct al. W. G. n. Phelps ct
q III ppsal from Harris. This action is
j. 'sattO SET aside Judgment rendered
Z, IVY 10 which the plaintiffs here were
sN The former suit was to re-
M gae'seSenth part OF many small
y INV land aud for partition. That suit
r NV N recovery by the plaintiff aud
1on' II is sought to set aside that
sAeul Tor the reasons | The parti-
M Unfair. .. That The attorney
snnllh wrongfully consented TO The
\ .he Term AT which II was made,
4 sls mad expressly directed him 20
VA M uy partition at that term ,
" NY 70 some OF the land set apart
were at that time clouded by tax
M ~ execution sales, which fact was
W " % ner and known 10 defend
tae reason for not asking the
~sel aside the decree at the term
~ ~Aue Is that plaintiffs were impc'
~ ahu by reason OF poverty have
le 70 ascertain the facts. Held,
~ 'alue the plaintiffs 10 the relief
'ney must show that they
y b re'enied from urging against
w IS sasnenl OF which they complain,
~ which would or ought 10 have
VA N ~ iIs rendition, and that this pre-.
. salted from fraud, accident OF
z. " Tie adyertc party, without
sigenco on their part. Cas-
sen, u Tex, l07; Johnson vs.
n. A Nv eo Tex, 289; Nirins vs.. Nc
rs. That 4 party may be
M a reason why he should not be
3 ,ss,, we same rule OF diligence IN
y ~ s suits instituted by himself a.
X persons. Ignorance Of th'
n