Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-11-07
THE HIGHER COURTS.


Anson Mills ct al. VS.. George PAM of
nL. from El paso county. Nine dis
unct cases were consolidated under tho
above title by order Of the lower court
separate pleading was ordered, aud sep
arate charges were given. Verdicts and
Judgments. were given in four cases only.
because the judgments rendered Ia the
court below do not dispose Of the other
hve cases and the rights Of the parties
therein. with which the four cases de-
clded were consolidated, the appeal *
dismissed for want Of jurisdiction. Opin-
ion by Justice Key.
Berendo Stock company VS.. d. o.
McCarty, from Tom Green county This
Is case of tresspass to try titlO involv-
ing four sections of school land. Appel
liant claims as vendee OF the original
| purchasers from the state; appellee
| claims under lease from state. The or
| iginal purchaser bought under act Of
| April L, 1883, and paid first two in
stallments of interest in 1854 and 1885.
The annual installments of interest due
January /, 1856, and Jnnuary !, 1887,
were not paid when due, but were ten
| dered the 18th day of January, 1888,
and refused, and the obligation 10 pay
declared forfeited. About November ~.
1887, appellee leased the land In contro-
| yersy. To solve the question at issue,
IT, Is necessary TO construe two acts
of the Nineteenth legislature. The first
of these was approved February III,
1852, and was amendatory Of the act
| of March u, 1888. II substantially pro
vided that one-thirtieth of the priuci-
pal should be paid at the time Of purchase
and the remainder in annual instruments,
bearing Interest payable on or before the
| lst Of March Of each year, that the
i fuiImpn "a tho Ttrittatgft annually
should not work a forfeit until the whole
| sum became due, but that failure to pay
| interest annually before the first day
of August following its maturity should
| work a forfeiture. The second act was
| approved February %, 1880. The first
section of this act was that the failure
| of holder of public free school, univer-
| sty, or asylum lands under contract Of
| purchase from the state, to make the an
| nual payments Of principal or interest
| thereon prior TO the LIST day Of August
after the same become due, shall not
holders in such land" The court holds
that this, II construed as repeating part
Of the act of February lB, 1880, would
leave the law In such Il condition that
purchaser might pay one-thirtieth of
| the amount of his bid and then use the
land for twenty-nine years without pay
ing anything further Such a departure
from business principles will not be at
tributed to the law making department
of the government unless no 9tner con
struction is possible, If 1t had been the
intention Of the legislature TO deprive the
state of the right of forfeiture altogether,
such would have. in all probability,
been stated In general terms, and no
Limitation would have been put in. The
legislature evidently had in mind the
idea of failure to pay principal anu IN
terest both prior and SUBSEQUENT 70 the
LIST day of August, and having restricted
the exemption from forfeiture TO such
failures as occurred before the list day
| Of August, did not intend TO deny the
state the right of forfeiture for failure
after the LIST day of August to pay past
due interest, II such was llie case, M
court below dld not err IN h9luIlB tlill
the llaihtlH huu lulen " oi,IW M
| In itself to the lana IN quesuon, ihe
| Judgment is therefore a11ImeI' QplIluh
by Justice Key. (Chiet justice flsher,
| having been counsel, did not SIT the case'l
], Loustaunuu y 20, VS.. Mary " lam
bert ct al, from BeXar county, ~. ?.
Lambert leased premises OF appeiitutS5
for three years, at $40 per inonth, hhu
after making the first payment, aaban-
doned the business and absconded, MARY
II. Lambert and other creditors Drought
suit against him Immediately, ana on
the first of the following montl tne hp
pellants also brought suit against HIM
for rent for two years anu eleven
mouths An parties r. rociS was sold
and the money placed in the hands ~, OF
the clerk of the court below, me
leasehold estate Of X =. Lambsrt was
attached by. NJ IL Wilson ana ira ito
ferred by him TO Ben r NOSE WIN lne
consent of appellants ms sun was
brought by, nppellees TO enJoln L ;,l,'
tGunau & Co. from executing their ludB-
ment. The court holds that as Lons,
tauuau X Go. knew Of the transfer !, 81
the lcasehold estate ana ngreeu 70 ~
they hereby waived their ludilnient ieb
and agreed TO look to The asslgnee or
The lease for the rent II would NOT pc
right to allow them TO recover tT t,,.
nor would il be right 20 allow hell
NIoke, the assignee Of the lease, TO AVOID
his obligation to pay the rent ana
thereby profit ut the expense OF greul-
tors tors, Of the original lessee, Ih,e, lover
court charged the jury that II they
fonnd from the evidence that the lease
was assigned with the consent Of Logs-