Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-05-20
HOOPS PILLS are hand made and are per.
feet In competition. proportioh asd appearance.
GN; - Tex, 2od). The Judgment is
affirmed. Oninlnm Nv Collnrl. A. ].

Rusk IS. Lawnir ct ul, from Coleman.
Jrespass 10 try title. Appellant claims
under act Of March 20, 1871 up. Glt'el
aid act OF 1850 M. lSiM Appcllcrs
claim by yitlue Of Homestead donation
laws lSayles civil statutes, art. $500
Nupplani Hia'e application 10Th ,of
March. 1870, anl obtained patent there
for June II, 1870. Appellees settled on
Oct. Is, 1850, and filed their applira.
lions for survey the following day
The prior right prcyiso IN act OF 1882
relates only 20 purchases and does not
a0ect the acquisition Of hOuiVstcads. The
court charged the jury hat plaintiff
tlally settled On the laid On Oct, %,
1859, and have since continuously occn-
pie II. Appellant contends that this
charge was disreearded 10y the verdict.
because occupancy as required in u WIS
not shown. Defendants nave shown a
superior equitable title TO the land which
should prevail over the lcgll gitle "
tho plaintiff. Though the improvements
put upon tie land n the time of their
original entry would not constitute them
actual settlers within the literal terms 0f
the statute, the evidence shows a snl,-
stnnlial compliance with the law. The
object AMI purpose of the law would
be defeated y mere tcchuicility IL Il
should he held that plaintiff could, under
the circumstances, recuver the home
stead VI lowrie. Literal compliance Is
sometimes dispensed with. t26 Tex, 33i;
81 Tex, G20l. The law requires settle
mcnt before the application is made
Qlcy stat. $3.50, Literal compliance
with this would place. the homrsteldr
hold that the analogy of the homestead
lew should bc applied, and that where
creditor could not sell the deh'or's
property because Of its homestead char
nctcr 1t having been legally designated
MS such. though not actually occupied
the purchaser could not take the land NJ
one claiming homestead under its home
homesteader Is entitled Ia a reasonable
time after constructing lis dwelling to
Inuvr into it. There is no error The
judgment Is affirmed. Opinion by Col
lard, A. j.
Harris vs. Broilcs ct al. from San
| Saba. For partition. The decd 10 up
| nellnnt which was held void for mcpr-
| rHiIty, described The properly as "all
| :hat certain Interest," IN the lnudel estates
| of said Henry r. Fisher aud ,lary G.
| Fisher. deceased, to which we are, 0r
may be entitled by gin, devise or de-
c. Fisher, by inheritance FROM her dc.
ceased fntkrr. Henry II. Fisher. was
the Ownrr 0t an undivided one'clghth
interest IN The land in controversy. The
court erred in holding the decd void (TG
| Tex. sou; Deohn on Deeds, see 1913.
| The Judgment is reversed and the cause
rcmandel. Opinion by KY, \. j.
Bonner d Eddy, receivers, W. Fer.
rell from Williamson. The record shows
no notice OF appeal In open court. tRry.
stat, art. 1850. This court therefore
| has no Jurisdiction and the appeal Is
dismissed Opinion by Kcy, \. j.
We will be able 10 supply you with
| cake today. The demand last Saturday
was so unexpected and great that we
were unable to till all the orders, which
we regretted very much.
TURNER 4 'DINGEE,