Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-01-31
COURT OF APPEALS.
Full Text OIL Decisions Rendered in the Fort
Worth District

Court Of civil appeals First district. y.
d. T0rlton, chief Justice; II. q. Head
aud l. w. stevens, associate jusuces
W. H. HUI, clerk
No. $50 j. ~. Ellis, appellant W..
the state OF Texas, appellee" Appeal
from Ellis county.
CONCLUSIONS OF FACT.
This suit was instituted 10y the county
attorney of Ellis county IN the name Of
the state under tide 3G of the revised
statutes ON the subject of eschcut. lt
resulted iu q Judgment in behalf of the
state against appellant for lots . and u
In block ~ IN the town of WuNuhachc,
Ellis county, from which judgment this
appeal is prosecuted.
Ia the year, tSB2 one Thomas Stephens
died seized of THESE lots without dis
posing of them lr will and without heirs
Ina 1860, appellant took actual possession
of the lots, cluiming them as his own,
and made permanent and valuable ini-
prOycuentS thereon, and has been i'm
actual and adverse possession ever since
AT the time of the trial below the lots
were worth 800 and the improvements
thereon 5000. making total value Of
5000 The statement of facts agreed
upon by the county attorney and the
attorney for appellant rcctcs that it
was proved and admitted that appellant
had occupied In good faith since the
first day of January, 1853. the lots in
controversy continuously. claiming the
Same In good faith as his own and that
hc bad placed ion good faith said valuable
aud permanent improvements thereon
All the material allegations of the states
petition were sustained by the proof
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
10 appears from recital in the iudg-
unuJ Tint the court below held that the
pleas of limitation and suggestion of iul-
prOvrmyutH nude iu good faith could not
Dee iutclpOsed ns "a defense IN this kind
of % suit. and these are the only uucS-
uuns submitted for our determination.
On tine question OF limitation appel
lUut IS position seems 10 Ice that a coHDli-
uncr with the statute which prescrhrs
the method of procedure tc escheat
property is essential 10 vest any title Ia
the state; and iu az much as his adverse
possession prior To the institution of this
proceeding was sufficient I'm length and
character To- confer title uuou him. his
case does moi como within the rule which
respects limitation as defense against
the state. We cannot concur with him
iu This view Of the question. 10 seems
10 have been recognized In the days Of
Chuucrilur kcut as general principle
iu the American law and has beeu many
Times icnihrmed since, that whenever the
owner dies interstate without leaving any
utcly In the stute by operation of law
and that no inquest of office is necessary
iu such case, 4 different rule. however,
seems 10 prevail in case Of q proceeding
To vschCut during the life uf an allen,
property which hc has acquired by pur-
chuse; hut when the death of the oWncr
occurs and there rs no person to take the
estate us heir or devise ID devulycs co-
instant hy operation Of law upon the
state. Sands ys. Lyuhnm. p Grutt. 2ul
aud cusrs there cited; Van klppk vs..
OHullu, 81 n. j. Law, 5S2-2u y. J.
Law 81; Wullahlu vs. lnE,rsoll.l1
III, i23; Eeut's Com. 10 This theory
puts the possession of appellant, from its
Inception adverse Go the states title. II
Is true article 1919 of the rschcut stnt-
utr provide, that the Judgment shall vest
title iu the state. but mn the preceding mr.
iiCles Indicate chat suit iu behalf of the
state Is founded upon "A title already
vested Article 100 declares thar anon
the death without devise aud without
heirs of n person seized of any real, or
possessed of any personal rstutc, such es-
tate shall ,scilcut to and vest In the
state; and the next article provides thai
the petition shall ullpgc the facts or cir
cumstanccs i'm some consequence of
which such estate is claimed To hoye es-
cheated. Article INA provides thnt tho
fuct8 stated In the petition or me title
of the state may bp trnvorsod mud Ar.
ticlc lT7T provides for Judgment 10 bn
rendered. if after the issue and t,i,i
IL appears that tho state has GOOD titlr
To the property mentioned I'm tho uetitinn
As Is said ia one OF Inc case. "An IN,
QUESTION does not constitute am c.rhpnt
IA h siu5plv A mrons I,' which ,,, '.,".',
furnishes authentic evidences NJ br,. ~
tie" We thmI; tbis oyprpsses n,n tr',
construction of o,,I stot1tn mo i.,'. Wv
oi lille Ly egchcat pdicntes VOW ,in,'jSS.
linn nm assertion Lv tbr stat',' F'Nrl{
authoEty Ia strictly nm nct of so,,r',.' 1',n
and hcncc uchcs or limitation ca,,not
In Jisnosing of tbo ,Joa 'r
mcpts i'm rnnd mini VIZ ,ra iruPl9't.
moro diacnit am nri,,srla ,oulI u
snri,factorr coucluaon tnpsil, Iv''n u