Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-02-03
AUSTIN COURT or APPEALS.

- ~ . AHN WV ~ o ~ afA ffff'.'.f
I'm the court of civil appeals for the
third district the following opinions were
read on "Wednesday Feb. /, lSa3.
Golson VS.. Fielder from llauo. This
suit Is one Of trcspuss To- try title. The
common source is J. II. Rogorg. In July,
1873. Mrs. H. r. Norwood ami husband,
l.. ~ Norwood. executed "a deed Co this
land to j. H. Rogers The deed rcctes
that the consideration for the transfer
Is Eau assignment and transfer 10 Mrs.
r. n Norwood by j. II, Rogers, agent
of T.. II. GOlsOn < Co., of ccrium
Judgment recovered 10y Guspn y Co..
AGAINST Norwood Bros In 1887 Rogers
hy deed transferred the land 10 appellee.
Since the transfer hy Mrs. Norwood
Rogers and appellee have paid all the
tuNps and have claimed tn own II. The
consideration for the decd from Rogers
to appellee was partly on old debt AMI
partly cash The court below held that
the rccitals of consideration ina the decd
from Mrs. Norwood 10 j. III. Rogers
could not serve 10 fix notice ON appellee
that Rogers held the land la trust for
u. +. Golson. and that said Fielder, huv-
ing paid q valuable consideration for the
land, Is an Innocent purchaser in good
faith This conclusion of the court can
not be sustained.
The rccitls upon the face Of the deed
from Mrs. Norwood and husband Co
Rogers chat the consideration paid iur
the land was the transfer of the iudg-
mcnt m the case of Golsou q Co. vs..
Norwood q Bro, 10y J. u. Rogers, ageut,
had the effect Go Impress the l'ul title
OF the land held hy Rogers with au rN-
press trust I'm favor OF GOsou * Co,
Rogers declared the title 10 Ice In him
self but appellee could not rely upon
such declarations We know of mo- piiu-
d Ia. o l...H % D. b.
rest his title. either Legal or equitable
upon the declarations Of the seller as
affecting the utlc asserted hy another.
Again the facts show that the greater
part OF the consideration paid by Fielder
for the land WAS a prc-cNislmg debt.
Such n consideration can net Ice the hnsis
Of an innocent purchase except 10 the
cNtont of the amount actually paid at
The time of the purchase. The plea of
state demand can not prevail Rogers
took the land NJ agent for Golson &,
Co.. and lac would not be- permitted to
acquire title adverse 10 his principal
Simply the payment of taxes will not
amount 10 an custer on Yepudintiun of tho
title of the truc owner. For the errors
pointed out the Judgment Is reversed
and Judgment rendered for appellant for
onp-hulf of the land, ms by the agreement
at the time of purchase Rogers was 10
have ouchnlf for concentrating the
trade. Opinion by Foster G.. j.
-
McGhce Irrigation Ditch company vs..
A. W. Hudson ct all from Stirling
county
This was a suit 10 enjoln appellants
from building dam across the Concho
river and diyrrting water from said
river for irrigatmR PURPOSES, across the
land of 9ppollccs under condemnation
proceedings. The only question 90 decide
Is the act of the Twenty iirsi legislature
of March 10. 1889, page 100 relating Ga
irrigation IN the arid portions of the state
Appcllccs claim that the act Is void and
imperative because 10 docs not designate
the arid portions Of the state; appellants
claim that the courts win nke judicial
Knowledge 81 the locality of the arid
region Neither of those claims are well
founded. VI IL not necessary thut iht
law should define the exact location OF
the arid regions IN fact such would bc
| difficult 90 do Neither Is IL necessary
! that the courts SINH take judicial l.uoWl
edge of such regions, bur under the gpu.
oral provisions OF the act az SET Out ii
section I, evidence may be- introduced
tn show that certain localities cOnt
| within the provisions 90 Use law
! There ore laws of the United State.
| that permit parties 10 acquire swami
| lnnds. etc.,. and certain laws of this stat,
/
| cultural lands. These laws did not pre-
Tend 10 designate the locality of IN,
] clgss of lands mentioned. but left thai
| fo be- as,eriamed a. fact, and whei
.o done. the law was applied The de
| PENDANT did rot plead that the stroan
| was M an arid portion Of tl" state whcr,
! the rainfall was not sufficient, and tia
/ irrigation was necessary for agrieul
| turll purposes. nor wna such proven
| 'rhesp facts should have hcrn alleged
| The Judgment Of the court does not ga
form los for what reason il reuderc.
Judgment iu favor Of appellee
| bui III for uny reason ID CA
bn snstniued IL Is our duty 30 q,
~ although the mason iil thr MUD o
ne niai count for The ludomcnt may b.
rropr. Az no error u found ib ti
Judgment Il Is affirmed opinion hy Fish
M. chief justice
Annie Harris e. al. W. II Shnfeg
fron BroWil Action Of trespass TO tC
The appellee claimed tile % the land a
heir Of Mary Bird who died ~ le4o' ~