Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-06-21
SUPREME COURT.
DECISIONS RENDERED AT THE
AUSTIN SITTING.
The Findings-Hon. John w. Stayton, G..
D.: Il. X. Gaines and John l.. Henry,
Associate Judges; Z. :. Morse, Clerk.

Ellen Palmer VS. Il. l.. Bennett; from
Wise. On rehcaring. On a former day
this cause was reversed and remanded by
the commission of appeals. l. n re-exan2i-
alton of this case shows that i'll the former
disposition of the case the record was mis-
Understood. and the rehearing will be
granted The court below sustained a de-
mUrer to so much of the answer as at
tempted To set up facts to show that no
vendors lien existed, and the correctness
Of that ruling is the question before US. =
There is no averment in the answer of APP
pc.lant that Meredith did not occupy the
land until he conveyed to MeadOr, nor that
the latter did not take possession and hold
!, until he conveyed it to F. c. Palmer, de-
vnascd husband of appellant. In the alb
srucr of such aVermentS the petition was
fatally defective. 3. One who has pre-
eupled land may sell it prior to the COM
peion Of the occupancy for three years,
and # this possession be kept up py the
yrudec or veudees, the patent issues in the
original right, and the land does not become
vacant. l. The answer shows that f. G.
Palmer or his family held for less than
three years. when patents issued to him,
which could not have occurred had the
right under which the patent issued, mad
is origin with his possession. No error.
Affirmed. Stayton. c. j.
i. = Sellers VS.. Texas Central Railway
e. al, from Bosque. Suit by appellant to
recover damages for the destruction of a
stock Of goods, caused by an overflow, said
damage ALLEGED to have resulted from the
negligent construction of appellee railway.
J. AppelccS filed special answer in which
i WAS avtrred that at the time the road
WIS constructed the railroad company
owned the land along the river. including
The lot upon which the goods of appellant
Were stored at the time Of the overflow,
and that appellant held the lot, ''under 4
purchaser from said company, who pur-
chased he same after the erection of said
railroad and embankment whose
tile was governed by conveyance from
said company, containing clause warrant
ing the title TO the same against all persons
Claiming or to claim the same, by, through
o.. under it. its assigns or successors" 1t
vas also alleged that the parcel of land so
conveyed was a lot in a town which had
been laid of by the company, prior TO the
conveyance and that at the time the COM
pany sold this lot ii also sold other lots in
the same town to other persons. Held: In
the conveyance of the lot there was no i'm
Piled reservation of the right to flood the
granted premises in case Of reShetS by
retaining the embankment as t then eX-
listed The demurrer to the special an
Swer should have been sustained by the
court below. Reversed and remanded.
Gaines, j.
Clark A. Green vs.. O. G. Hugo; from
Frio. Trespass to try title. ]. Our statute
il relation to private corporations, as
well as the bylaws of the company in
troduced in evidence, confers the power of
conveying lands upon the president alone.
The resolution of the corporation author
lied Jones only to make contract of sale,
and by clear implication withheld from him
authority either TO receive the considera-
ton or to make bond for title. ?. Even if
Jones had authority to sell, he could not
sell to his wife. The income would be COM
munity property and he therefore had a di-
rect personal interest in the transaction.
An agent cannot. either directly or indi-
rectly, sell to himself g. Appellant can
not successfully maintain that her husband