Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-05-15
CIVIL COURT OF APPEALS.
Full Report Of Decisions Rendered BY me
cour Tor the Second District.

No. 1o3 cbas o. Wood, appsilaet vs. J.;
W..s.H appellee. Appeal from the
district court u Taylor county.
CONCLUSIONS OF FACT
on the 2nd day OF August $50. Sri Ian5
county sold her fout lrasnIa Vt.,itaniel Al
ills lime onr O. W Jones was m Aetun
settler uuon the lunl VI ty ,h, A.
being a part Of the SAID Tour nas ehsip n
pellant claims under regular yhu M oy.
ttlr from huntington. Mcdaniel anu bohVa
appellee claims uudcr regular shniI m,
TILE from said lone. ang ME- Wiz notice
VI the rights 0f Jones and hppeuev vlnl.h.hhs
uqder hlru. 10 reasonable ume W, ~
purchase by burlington hcllanlsi 9n ,sai pI ten.
said Jones through his attorney maae -
der both 10 Griilcs county and TO us shs W.
vcndess claimlng his prior right 20 tuf.h mas.
the 100 acres IN eontrY{ets3 up0 at,. u males
ike tender ln his plvalings III tnls iii ~,
After such tender by Jones hr so'u .yb an Iii
Interest aud clnim 70 j.. 7. Aheh, Mh1 so on'
Ia Rinnehnrd aad Mnrilu. who s9lu 70 NJ
peIiee. me anding N the court that Jones
had not abandoned his claim ptl"t 70 ~, Wv
sale by him Is -uppofltN " w er,,,..ii.,.
Judgment was rendered ~ tnipf OF 1pPrHe''
from which this appeal Is prosecuted.
OPINION.
That Jones had such an interest In he
laud In cunirutery " was ihr pl"pth ~" ~.
Iect OF transfer by him we h1Ne aFfsly
decided lIaker vs., Mllmgn, q y W rep
~: Best " Baker decided By Ms May ~
1874
Jones right TO become the purchaser of
county made the sale 10 burlington, Me
Daniel aud Baker BY the fact that ne Ns VIZ,
then an actual settler thereon ana We lhlnh h
the finding OF the court that he had done
nothing inter this ard before his sale to
Allen which would preclude nun rom ION
transferring his right therein Is supported
by the evidence II Is true there IL cyl
a. nee IN the record which might have Justl-
fed IA nndng that be had abandoned all
claim to this land before such sale by MN,
hut the evidence also shows acts on ms
prrt lnronsistent with such Rbta loninent.
II Is not claimed that appellant or his ven
dOr- paid Jones anything for his claim Nor
that any VI Them were ulslchd IN any way
To their injury by any declarations or acts
On Ills purl, and under the circumstances
We ihlnk the court WAS Justified IN nudlhg
that he had not lost the prior right grlprnn-
taad him a. ia actual soItlpr by the con
stltutiou to purchase his land
We are also Of oplnion that the evidence
was sufficient to sustain the finding OF the
cuurt lhut scnry llakrr under whom ap-
pellaut claims, had n0ticc u the Jones claim
PRIOR To his purchase. SeMcy Baker Nun
| Mcdaniel that a man hal been living in
d. {out on the land, but had abandoned
| IT," The Witness Martin, testified that he
| had talked with both Mcdaniel and Snarcy
baker about Jones claim the same fall he
| compromised other settlers claims: that
| The latter had tried to compromise the Jones
claim witt him. blanchard testified;
| I'd to be- trying to compromise the claims
| Of the settlers, Jones had comfortable
| dug out on the place In which he lived, II
| well aud some twenty or thirty acres fenced
| aud few acres plOuGhed' Martin and
| blanchard both state that II was a matter
| ot common knowledge and nOt0rlcty about
| Merkel That settlers were on various parts
! " the Gflmcs county school lands; that II
| was conunon talk about Mcrkrl and that
Jones' claim was discussed Ike the others.
| me deed frOn GtiLcs county, TO Baker.
| Burlington and Mcdaniel recltes that they
| undertake. 10 eject all settlers On the lands
| conveyed nt their own expense. II Is not
| dulcd ilnt Jours' possession charged them
| with notice Of bis Cldln. II Is true at the
| time Srnrcy Baker purchns ID 10 one was
living on the land. but he admits that he
| knew u man had been living on II, and we
| think la view OF the evidence and clrcuin-
| MnncVs referred TO above the court was Jus
Tined In ilndlug that he was chargcahle with
be had been informed that the claimant
| had abandoned II.
Apprllaat purchased from senecy Baker
aUer tile IN OF February, 1870 Al this
tlilie all " tue deed In nppellecs' chain Of
tile Including the one FROM blanchard and
Martin Ia fimsclf were on record, aud ht
wis IN actual possession " the laud Appel
lut's Witness Mcdaniel. testified: II have
been On the land once or twice a year and
since luurs vacated there has been no one
occupying the lanl TIL about January, 1890
when Que J, ID. WrsSon established a raniI
nbnut The sume point Jones' dug-utt was
lnegted, Appellant was therefore charget
with notice when he purchased
Appellant In his statement under Nj,
second aud third assignments Of error nsi-t
llnt tile evidence does not show the term,
" the sale from crimes county To Bufing
'on' MCDANIEL and Baker nor that the len
dgrs made Jones' aud appellee were In con-
pNancr with the terms VI such sale W.
hnd. however, neither assignment NJ orrW
nor proposition presenting this question 10
/ our consideration, m" Judgment rntprc,
g The court rccltcs such tenders aud VI
would not feel authorized To reverse tn
Judgment IN the absence uf an assisnmen
" errut even should Il he found that tn
ht appellant.
rtndlnr no error In the Judgment au
proceedings OF the court below we are a
. opinion that the judgment appealed fror
( Should BE- In all things affirmed, and Il 1
/ No ordered. HEAD