The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1890-06-26

made in 1888 or1734 to the municip-
atty that afterwards became the city
OF San Antonio. Tie grant is lost and
the testimony on its character and
extent is very meagre and we do not
judicially know it's character. Those
parties claiming under the grant
of 1918, which seems to be
perfect in its particulars, have been in
possession for more than forty years,
the city never asserting title during
that period. The city was established
in 1888; this is fact historically well
established, and territory was set
apart for its inhabitants, but ii does
not follow that the title so vested in
the city as to deprive the Spanish
government from comforting title to
parts or individuals this was fire.
quently done, and we are not prepared
to hold that the Spanish government
did not have power in 1918 to make
the grant under which appellee claims.
The judgment of the court below in
favor of defendant is
Affirmed.
SIMPSON, HOLLOWAY EFT AL. VS.. Nc
ILHENNY Co., from Bosque county.
Opinion by Gaines, j.
Suit by appellee for one half interest
in the land in controversy and for par
tition. Plaintiff claimed under exec
ution sale. Defendant had occupied the
land with his wife, who had died a few
months before levy of execution, and
one half was conceded TO belong to
her heirs. Judgment for plaintiff and
decree for partition. This judgment
is erroneous. Some of the descendants
of Mrs. Holloway we're not parties to
the suit, and it is we'll settled that all
tenants in common are indispensable
parties to partition suit, and final
judgment does not cure such defect
We will say here that it is useless
incumbrance of the record to
set out written documents
at length about which there
is no controversy, and if such in
struments are excepted to as unneces-
sary membranes they should be
stricken out. From the meager al
legations regarding the execution
under which plaintiff claimed, we can
not say whether the same was void or
not. We will say, however, that under
ArJ. 1857 Revised Statutes, the clerk
of the district court is authorized
without further action of the court to
issue execution, both against the
original defendants and the sur
cites on the supersedeas bond against
whom the supreme courtrendered judy
ment. Under the facts the court did
not err in disregarding the pleas OF
limitation. If the sheriff's sale was
in fact made after return day of the
execution, then the sale was void.
The testimony of George was properly
admitted as circumstance to show
abandonment of the homestead. Proof
of insolvency of Mrs. Holloway in
order to claim 200 acres as homestead
was properly excluded because it did
not appear that either she or her
husband had title at the time of hel
death. The allowance to the guardian
ad Item is to be taxed against the
parties whom he represents.
Reversed and remanded.
JUSTICE CALHoUN's COURT.
In Justice Calhoun's court yester-
day t NO additional complaints were
filed against Frank Makemson, one
for stealing buggy and set of har.
ness from Mr.. Witt, OF Moody, and
the other for appropriating to himself
a mare.
RECORDERS COURT.
City vs.. M. Golf, disturbing the
peace by indecent and obstreperous
conduct, set for this morning at 8
o'clock.
City VS.. P. G. Kelley, intoxication
same order.
City VS.. Henry CANDIDA, intoxica.
ton, fined SIS and costs.
City VS.. William Bourman, intoxica-
ton, fined S. and costs.