Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-12-07

A%@-@ 81, td1 10 WON
the patent adduced in evIienoewas giant
ed, then you will fad tor plaintiff"
Defendant asked tae following charge,
which was refused: 1.-THE certificate, oy
virtue Of whicn the land In question WAS
located, was granted TO Solomon Keel.
and the psteu, is issusd upon said cer-
N1cate IN tue name Ct Solomon Keel,
which pstsnt vested the legal title In the
person TO whom the certif:ate was in
fact granted. II you believe from the
eVId nee that there were two men In Pes
ters' 20 ony by the name of Solomon
Keel you will determine from the evil
leace 70 which one OF the said msn of
that lame the certificate was in fact
granted II you believe from The tasti
mony that the certificate upon wnlea the
pHtenl 70 the land in Controversy was in
fact granted, and issued to, and In right
Of Solomon Keel, who was different
man from the DR.. Sol. Keel under whom
the plaintiffs claim, then the legal title to
the land is Ia the Solomon Keel
20 whom the certificate ). wes
in fact granted, and you will find for the
defeudanis," Held: 1t Is SELF evident
that the grantee of lS1d certificate, who
has not parted with his ownership, Is TIE
owner. OF the land located and p:tented
under s.; sud such owner hiss the legal
title. The court should nave given the
charge requested. Reversed aad re-
manded. Walker j.
". D. Slayton vs. Z T, Singleton ct e.
appeal from Wlchitz. Appellant appeals
from Judgment CT partition awarding
him cne-e!gtth interest ID Certain laaG,
he Claiming one-iouf.h interest. Fhe
lEE presUnes that e person proven to be
dead left an heir or heirF. Nd such pre-
sumption, howsvsr, obtained as to will.
A ieV.see must establish his right through
will. Bu. &C helr Is not required be-
fore taking az heir to prove that. the de-
ceased H4s interstate. The iaI casts the
eelSsa upon proof of the facts which make
the heirship. A purchaser from an
heir is not bEecludsI from svailing him
SEX az the protection which our registra-
ton sccord rs innocent purchasers, when
suca purchase is asserted against al
unregistered : deed ffgm the intes
tate, and tia same rule will
hold IS agRirs. 81 unregistered will.
The foreign probate oi will gives no
validity to suca will, pati! certified 10
md registered IN same county within the
state, and such foreign probate proceed
jngs SZe not casrgeSbie as notice upon
ale purchaser CT lands S8scted thereby,
within the state, until AFTER such reeist-
ration, and by the sc. Of March %, 1887,
in the county where the lind is situated.
The probate OF the will n Tennessee in
1865 Wss not notiCs CT tbs contents Of it
to the parties in Texaa, dealing together
In setting snd bu7.rg and eellUg Texas
lands, Judgment is reversed aud hers
rendered TOR one-fJurth interest in the
land controversy in favor xpqel snt; the
other parties taking three iouEths interest
in the proportion giv+n in tie Judgment.
Revised and reformed. Walker, J.
Livingston We State, ex. rel. kelsey
appeal from Star. In this case, the
record vas r5turnable to the last Tyler
term Of this couIt, 1t heVirg been tried In
Deem Der, 1887. The record was fled in
Gh!s court IN April, 1888. Held; The
transcript should have been fled atrshe
last Tyler term. Because not so done the
apes! is dismissed. Dismissed. Stay.
ton. c j.
u. 0. Cnstor VS.. BIuns Ticke, Bake
C0!lender Company; sppeal from Bowie.
On motion for reheafing. The motion
ton having been duly contldered no sur
Gcient reason is shown the court VII! we
sa3Ild set aside the judgment in this
cause rendered st \ former day OF this
term. Motion overrnled. S.aytCn. G. j.
Psrriu & Fox va. kaufman & Range;
sppeEI from Hill. Suit b7 sppeiiees on
q note with attachment levied upon g
stock Of goods the property OF sppalisnts
l In the sffidsv1t upon which the attscn-
ment Issued the language WAS that the
wit was "not sned cut for the purpose OF
harEsssing end yexirg defendant" using
TIE singular, "GeienG8lt," instead OF the
piurs!, defendants" HelG: The sfi.
dSYit Was detective and the court below
ehou!d have so held. The procee dings So
to the attachment will be reversed and
dismissed, cut the ldgment sg.inSt Ap-
peiisnts will be sffitmed. Gaines, j.
COMMISSION OF APPEALs-TYLKR TERM,
1888.
J. S. Martin VS.. D. Q McCarty; sppeal
from Tom Green. Trespass t Try title
/. Where 3 party attempts to purchase
public lands under the act Gf April LIB,
1888, he should comply with the law,
which requires thu. classification CT the
ls1d when the psrty wishes to purchase
be made; that a tsoulsted statement be
fitad in the Office Of the county surveyor
WHARF the land is situated; that the lands
be ofe-ed for sale at public outcry st the
courthouse door by the person authorized
TO SCI! said LANDS. Nd error. Judgment
fl. ned. Hotby,J.
RcmUIus r GE!fish VS.. a. j. Rife ct
al; cppesl iTcm Caldwell. Trespsss to
tr7 title. l. mSp ueed by a surveyor in
his evidence TO explain the lines and
boundaries of the lane in controversy was
admissible In evidence, being offered IL
connection With, and as explanatory Of
the evidence CT the surveyor. 2 Equit-
abe estoppel is the effect CT the voIun
taEy conduct of . party whereby he is
pTeCluted, both etlsw and N equity. from
asserting the rights which might perhaps
have otherwise existed, either Of property,
or of remedy, as against smother
person, who hss, N good faith. relied
upon such conduct, aud has been lsd
thereby to change his position for the
worse, and who on his part acquires some |
right, either OF property, |
OF contract OF OF remedy. 8. This court |
will not reverse where there is COZ fi.ct
IN the testimony, ihst is on the ground
when .he evidence below sustsins the
7eydic!, No error. Affirmed. Acker,
Pr
W. z. Ramsey vs.. Hurley Smith; ap-
peal from Johnson. Suit by appellses to