Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-06-30

N = IL
- ,.,,. .,,t, ..., 49,. t..,,,,..f
huv' ''ouvhi'i '' '' ~ ~ NIX, X"
YNt 'uN lanl " Nun' '"',n.s NY,
uud'N IA hlerh ~ " ranN WaN ~
h,S'l ul p lNlnV,L w ~. nI"'y VIZ ~, ~.
nllaSyt H'',,,Nn wv WV ,l nlN " MAJ
lgnNRh,s heAsphNn,,y "',,h.,,'" - NM
WIN h"i' " Nt"lNN.l pt"uVi'' y, NN''''
NNi,t'i'e un,iv, wv H., t,
,.v allv,'ana yn',,,s,,,s uIth ii,
kV1A w, 'Nytl"n ~ ..,, w, nv,
n evausc 4, rv V" r,,,ne ,he nroposi.
MN M ~ ~ KY thc
wv tuI " w ~ "" w., XXI
nv, w., NJ, t,,, dai Ky, r.a,r1
~ ~, NpN,,t " '1'"n 1il.,',t a,,,ll,
MA nlIouun ,,,., Nsgnn,ig hnvn H,s t,r,ctrj
nv" b1' s"'"''
ny KY, ,is,..,,l,, - ,,,,,, ,,,. c,,,.
sui sui. i'sln,iN''Un - i, ,N,'.i ~. .
u,,s'ui ,.p,,,t, ~, no'I'
' ,N,'' W ,S,0, ,,,p n,i,,r,in no
i,, l,,.i,...t., 49,, ,' NM /, t,'ooa,u
X. u,,ss.,s.,,1 ~ t,3,rw,,tinn NJ 4 esttnin
f,.,s ...,.,,,n nm ,,brr"in tb, lnvs In,
III 49, 'i' ,,,',s,,,,,,ti,, ,hat
nN,i. w., '' ',.,.i,,issi MI cnst. nnnn
Xxx, t,,,n ,.f r',i,,,ti,,,. AZ ,,,,.s,,'u,,'
t,nn IVs m,.,, ,i,,, Inn, i,sJa,y sgcIie
1'Vs ~ ~, 49, -, ~ 1i -, us,,,t
W. -, -" ~ ,'',,,,..,,, az .,,,,,i,,,. ,yi,i,tt, M,
s',e,,,1 i.lNJ pe 'y,,,strNniiys nnilrn ii
l,niJ ,h.. dof,,,ti,nt. ,rNhsa .lalns Md,
naiel subsequently 10 tho registration,
chnrgenhlc with notice OF The rccltah
,,l,nt az i,fnrsn,, Ia he thpnce iravl,
Ia, ~ ,,,f,. XXX, INV ,g,re ,n,ble a.,
,f, nrnso'1,t,nn ~ III, tno,,ir,. and IN
die exercise o. reasonable diligence "a
aHcurttln that the land w controversy
was included M block ~ as II wan con-
yeyed 10 plaintiff,
ia this we are not prepared 10 way that
the conr erred. The REPATRIATION ot tic
decd to lilo company should operate la
constructive notice 81 what appears on
The face OF tho decd M registered, but
~ no moru than TINT tNloinuih W.
Hurt, 81 Texas, ii0l Tho deed thus
registered did not notify M Inspector
thereof of thu dimensions NJ block 80
Mns II sufficient 10 effect such nn IN.
speotor with conclusive notice that this
block was 27S foet ia width Instead ~
300 ferfP W. think not. The descfp
lion given Ia tn deod was hencc nnpcr
focf aud uncertain, and where this W
tllc ease We understand thp rule to be
Oint Will. tho notice effected lv the rog.
iatrntlnn IA sucb nj to begrt tle dntr uf
inquiry on tho mart Of the purchaser VI
ntbpcrty which might he affected by tho
,rsrfihtiDu dyen In the deed. yet this
inference of notice il rehuitnhr by proof
Of the due aud diigunt pursuit ul such
in1uirv md of thU existence of good
faith on tle nnn of tbe purchaser after
III nn,,iry hus bepn exhausted Such
fnle W. nndorstnnd 10 he intlmnted IN
tita fn4e of Gnrtpr "a lInWkinr, t1
grxas RDd n Tho purchnsrr diachnrsi
ibr dnty Of INJURY until doubt II NJ.
moved no viii moi he deprived of tie
benefit NJ the defense u "a bona hdc pgF
clnse. Whether Ia the present case the
defendants discharged this duty was %
question of fact submitted 10 me Jury
aud In the appellant ehalRuncnt. oi
error we find no complaint 70 Tue eilo0t
that tho nppollees failed M the exercise
Of proper diligence IN The Inquiry .sns
rcsfod by tho record The Views here
expressed dispose Ia effect Of all the as
arguments Of error,
tvl,u, ~. ar. fre, ia oonless TINT tho
,.., ",il,r .iIerga Ia hal Without
I'M, i,s,, ~, a,n,, ,y, nave neyetiheiegs
',',,I, .,,,, h.i,nney en,ludrd thnf the
VIM, ~ th,' ,r;ai ca,,rt WIN refefgnce "a
h'',v W. ~ .' apv ~
mn ,i",n,,, IA tbaref,ra affirmed