Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-30

Austin, Aprll ~ iSpt clnl The supreme
court h1udud down thc following dc'isllls
yrsirrdnyi
CUR Colorado and einla We Railway conn
puuN V Nlaelnh from Johnson
lu ihH application for witt nl error ~
= made tu HpDcHr thni COPY ~ nn opln.
luu of thp court uf aiyil appeals on mo-.
g l ig, '',, allns WE "lnl, igd ifom ,hy
FOR dlHmlHni of thp application nH The rules
are prsilY Understood hut uH THIS omission
Mha r'ldcnily lnndNwinnl Zen DAYS VIII
ho rruniod for The nliug Of a certified copy
thereof
Tmus and Pacific Hallway company VIZ.
n thls case the court of civIl appeals except
o. Go one uudluF adopted thu uudluw ~
inri or ihr trial court iu such ruHrH Whcru
these hudlngs nro mot Included 200 iho upln.
mp io ellis court aud ordinarily u omission
tu tu du would Doe ground Tor dlHmlHHul ut
the application hui ua thp omission iu thiH
ease was evidently .nndNurihut ten days
viii hn allowed ln which tu cure such de-.
irrt ln ihr future lilgmis must observe
thr rucH governing such questions as are
pointed out iu thr two rnncH above noted.
Jones ya Lee from Iirynr
suit was brought hy the nppollcr1 tn
establish their utir Zoo nurhiif Interest in
certain land 100 rrlo county rhe Pedro
Flores Morales headlight certificate was
owned Jointly bl john " Smith nul Enuch
me appellants under Jones This certificate
was heated ou The land No oontfuguHy No
$50. Later in THIS same year smith died
hud Mrs lee ha wife became ndministra-
4 1852 she ana the said Enoch jones win.
drew the certificate from tho land Ia con-
Comal equity On thc iih " MAY 1859. The
udmlulsiruifiK in Obedience fo ma order ~
court hOld the last named lnnd 90 EnOch
Jones ana other persons. Iva 1904 suits for
al
under John w. Smith ln which the lnnd in
controversy Wna claimed us belonging Ina
part 90 smiths estate. THESE proceedings
terminated 100 1850 iu douoe being entered
iu The district court confirming tho parfl.
tlnuH " thr land in controversy between the
several claimants iu 1861 Ennch IOnea
iiheuio relocated un ihc land in ruutr1'
Ycfny ana had patents TO- Issue The dis.
tncl Judge based hia judgment on the con
iushn OF law 'lhal iht mother iH res adj
iudicnia and that thr defendants are eatOp.
pea, The court of civil appeals concurred
N 10 had boon shown ihnt nt the dates NJ
the proceedings in ihn district uud pro-
baio courts on either of Them the Morales
equlinby attached in, the land lu c0ntr0.
y'isy we would approve ulis combustion Hp
inr hh nWrheiiH Gre concerned During
was not on Ala land Ina iirio c1iiuty Dew and
then lu cuutnnrrar, THE main question Tor
decision therefore lH whether the certificate
was withdrawn from the land ou which
d was iirst located. II q was not with
drawn then the theory ~ res adiudicatu
may De upheld The nr8f law restricting fho
Withdrawal q noatiggg q certificates was
crlminntn floating had been deprecated but
not denied H Tex $50
hut ! u c0nicnded that az almlnlsiraior
did not have me power 10 withdraw a crrti-
hcuie ua % amounted "a converting reality
into personality. ihe contention ls plnlHi
bic. yef liuid certificate D. 10 different
HIA a. ~.
readily converted into land without which
h d useless that q has been found Inns
possible 10 arbitrarily classify Il o. personal
property The shifting of a certificate may
ln many cases hrncnf a person nF tho estate
or which Doc ia administrator. az Tex. 4ii
4iA) we can see no reason Why 40 ndmlnis'
traitor Should mon be allowed 10 withdraw
There Is another view Of This question.
Under tbe nci Of Feb 10 1879 Tho held
notes OF surveys were required 10 be- Fe.
turned 20 the land Office within twelve
months from location, The act contains no
eRcrplonf AZ a9mlmsifaior could dcigeh
provision Of the law aud therefore There
could be- 40 reason Tor holding that the
same result could noi b. accomplished hy
a direct and voluntary nct. We think q
clear that fhe certificate iIi question was not
attached 10 The land Ia FRO county at tile
Time the proses ,,al. ~ ne probate and
dcaio WIS oitgfhed % the lard
in COmal county dnHug this
dine then the theory Of res ad
judlcafa would NOT apply und ihe sale N
the land in tumal comfy made durluR the
due tho certificate WaF heated upon ID
would carry ihf title 10 the certificate 10
on acres they bought Lore % ihe WhOic
number ~ acres covered BY the cefiihfate.
lGT2 ~ The llile ~ ~ land la controversy
Duplicate certificate ard Injured 10 ihe
awnefa % he oefiihcate who car DgsYe