Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-06-03
THE HIGHER COURTS.
synopsis of Decls,ous Rendered AT the
Austin sitting of the supreme Court.


synopsis of Declsious Rendered at Tn
Austin sitting of the supreme Court.
j b. Tucker ct al VS.. Murphy ct al.
appeal from Parker. The patent issue,
upon survey made November 20, 1868
and relocation OF the same certificate OF
the same land made January p, 1865
The land was IN the NJ & L. reservation
which was made December 81, 1853. The
! question is, was relocation authorized
the act creating the reservation being
then In force. Held, that the right ac.
| quired by the first location was
a right growing out of q
location and survey which the
act declared should not be affected by 1t.
| The relocation vas within the terms of
the act Of Feby. 10, 1852, or. d. 1879
and was valid.
Ordinarily after thirty years, the power
| OF person who assumes to have executed
Il deed under power from another or in a
tiduciary capacity viii be presumed
This is but presumption Of fact, and
whether such Il presumption will obtain
In given case will depend on the facts
presented. In this case the deed was, or
pretended to be, that Of an
administrator, and shows upon
it, face that probate court
OF Gollad county had granted him letters
OF Administrations, that said court entered
an order OF sale, that the sale was con-
tlrmed. In TIE absence OF any showing
that the records Of that county established
this, or OF a showing of some reason ac-
counting for the non production of a
transcript, the court was authorized TO
refuse TO presume that the person execut.
ing the deed acting uuder a proper pow
er, Affirmed Stayton,.J.
James p Bates ct al. VS. John Bacon,
appeal from Denton. The plaintiff
claimed through the patent held void by
this coul In the case of Bacon VS.. w. j.
Russell, 81 Tex 400, and insists tlat the
act Of March 81, 1883, validated the grant.
Before the latter act was passed ne pur-
chased the land under execution against
Russell. Al the time Russell had no
right or interest in the land, the title
being in the state, The plaintiff acquired
by the sheriffs deed only such right
rs Russell had, and he had
none, and not what Russell after
wards acquired by the states bounty
The act of SS3 did not pass It's benefits
to the assigns Of the grantees, Reversed
and rendered Opinion by Robertson, j.
Donna j Stark ct al. VS. Carroll ct al
appeal from Denton. There sno principle
.ot law which requires u person having
au interest In land, the subject of part.
tlon IN q suit between other parties and
TO which he Is not party, TO intervene
ana claim his rights or become barred Of
his privilege Of bringing a suit in another
forum to assert them.
II IL claimed that the execution under
winch iIrrtIl al 4 a..
was Issued In part against estates of de-
ceased persons The administrators,
guardians OF heirs of such estates, might
have raised this objection. but 1t cannot
be allowed TO those against whom the ex-
ecutlon was properly issued. Each part
owner, after partition, has the title TO
his part warranted To him by an
the other part owners, aud his remedy,
In case Of failure of title, is
by seeking contribution out Of the shares
OF his warrant1rs. James vs.. Adams, 2l
IeNr l93. He cannot in action to which
they are not parties claim that his full
quantum OF land, allowed in partition
OF NUMBER abstracts shall be given him
from any particular parcel to the exclu-
sion OF other part-owners holding inter
ests IN the same tract. Opinion b.
While, C. j.
Lyman Blum VS.. J, +. Whitworth, al.
peal from Bosque county The verdict
affirmed the homestead rights OF the
defendant. The three lots which
comprised it were sold under
one Judgment, but two were sold under
one execution and the other lot under
another The defendant pleaded not
guilty and specially that plaintiff claimed
the lots through an execution sale, de.
scribing only the deed TO the two lots
and prayed its cancellation. 1t Is con.
Tended that these pleadings confined his
homestead claim 10 the two lots. There
was no objection made to this
IN the court below, nor any ok,
e4ption taken TO offered evidence,
ana the court did not err IN charging IN
accordance with the pleadings as acted
upon by the parties
The statement OF facts Is very meager
as presented here, It does not show that
defendant has any family, and il the as.
Slgnments urged these defects, the case
would oe reversed, Affirmed Opinion
by Robertson, j.
Berrendo stack Co. VS. Chas l., Rsiser,
appeal from Tom Green. 4 tax deed
will not afford a basis Of 1--we Years limi.
tatiOn II II isvoid for uncertainty, or II II
does not purport to convey Inc
land claimed; (2S Tex, 96) The land
conveyed by the tax deed was survey M,
w In the name OF John Deboer. Tas
land In suit was patented in the name of
phinoas De Cordora, assignee of John
Deboer, and was survey No. %. The
deed Is either void for uncertainty or
conveyance OF different tract from that
sued for Where the land is described In
lae petition by the name OF the patentee,
the number OF tho patent, the number
and grantee Of the certificate, the county
and number OF acres, and the survey
number, variance in the last, In the
proof made, wiz be mmaterial. Affirmed
Opinion by Robertson, j.
Houston & Texas Central Railway
company VS. Jas. Carson, appeal from