Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-06-29
THE HIGHER COURTS.
Decisions Rendered at the Pres
ent Austin Sitting.
THE COURT OF APPEALS.
Supreme Court Findings-Hon. John W.
Stayton, Chief Justice; r. r. Gaines
and John L. Henry, Associate
Judges; c. S. Morse, Clerk.
Supreme Court.

supreme SOufts
Galveston, Harrisburg and San Antonio
Railway VS.. the State; from Val Verde.
This was suit by the state TO recover sixty
sections of land from appellant corporation,
which had been located and surveyed for 1t
by virtue of sixty alternate certificates is
Esued July T. 1877, to the company by the
commissioner of the general land office.
The state sought recovery of the whole
number of sections and the cancellation of
the certificates Oh the ground that many of
the certificates had been issued for sldlngs
and switches in violation of law, and that
as the number of certificates so issued could
not be determined. all the land should be
recovered by the state. The court below
gave Judgment in favor of the state for the
land. Held. l. The forfeiture of the
franchises of corporation cannot be
claimed in collateral proceeding, merely
because ground for forfeiture may exist.
The forfeitures must be declared in judi
cial proceeding instituted for the purpose.
,. Under the act of 1876 railways were not
entitled to land for the building of sidings
and switches, but within the purview of
the law railroad companies Were entitled to
land for the main track built in. proportion
10 the number of miles built and main
tanned. 8. The court erred in canceling
certificates for ell the land and giving iudg-
ment for the state for the whole amount.
The land for the sidings, etc, was openly
demanded, untainted with fraud, and the
railway company is entitled to the land al
lowed by law for building and maintaining
its main track. Reversed and remanded.
Gaines, j.
Thomas J. Beall VS.. John Evans from Ell
Paso. Motion TO reinstate. l. Two years
had expired from the date of the judgment
in the lower court, and the time for suing
out a writ of error has lapsed by limitation.
The time in which writs of error may be
prosecuted is fixed by statute, and the time
as there fixed cannot be deviated from. The
order dismissing the writ of error on
fQ15nGnz2sy was correct. Overruled. Stay
VIM. Won Rosenberg VS.. Costello Ocular
ct al. from Webb. On rehearing. l. The
opinion rendered herein at the Galveston
term is correct. Grounds of motion not
maintainable. Overruled. Per curtain.
John Ball VS.. City of FL Paso; from Ell
PaSo. Motion to strike out briefs appellant.
l. Briefs are in substantial compliance with
the rules and this is sufficient. Overruled.
Per curtain.
ssJules Carmiere vs. E Brooks from Coke.
zAiotion to file new bond. l. Where last
bond is insufficient in amount, on appeal to
this court new bond may be given. Mo-
ton granted. Per curtain.
j. F. Hughitt vs. J. A. Russell; from San
Saba. Motion to affirm on certificate. l.
The motion is regular, meeting legal re-
quirements and will be sustained. Granted.
Per curtain.
F. Dollhouse VS.. the State; from Bexar.
Motion to affirm on certificate. l. The mo
ton is in compliance with established rules,
and makes proper showing. Granted. Per
curtain.
H. B. Wilson Us. S. S. Griffith; from
Travis Motion to affirm on certificate. l.
Notice of appeal was given, but the appeal
was never perfected. The motion is not
well taken. Overruled. Per curtain.
Fort Worth and Denver City Railway VS..
Belcher & Belcher: from Montague. Mo-
ton to affirm on certificate. l. The mo-
ton is in due form and meets legal re-
quirements Granted. Per curtain.
F. ]. Hughitt VS.. ]. A. Russell; from
San Saba. Motion to file transcript. l. The
transcript was made up and both attorneys,
notified. While one, perhaps, was justified
in taking out the transcript by sickness in
his family no excuse is offered as to the
other attorney. No proper excuse shown
for failure to have transcript sent up.
Overruled. Per curtain.