Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-01-23
COURT or APPEALS.
Full Text Of Decisions Rendered in the Fort
Worth District


Worth District
coprt NJ Clvn Appcais-Firsl district, II.
ID. Tarlton. chief Justice; IT, q. Head and
J. W. stevens, associate Justices W. L.
Hu6 clerk.
No. lOG, r.. A. Palfratl. appellant, vs..
state of Texas, appellee from Nilbargcr
county.
CONCLUSIONS or FACTS.
On the 22nd day of November. 1856,
one s. VI. Hutchins liled his application
and affidavit in compliance with the
regulations adopted by the state board on
Dee .. 1885. TO purchase the land In
controversy as agricultural land under
sections 6 and s of the act of 1883. In
said application Is IS stipulated, among
other things, as follows:
1T is further understood that any
violation Of any Of the provisions Of the
law, or any violation Of the rules aud
regulations of the state land board pres
crihiug The manner of purchasing said
lands. or failure 10 settle upon and
improve the land within ninety days from
date of award by the bOnrd, or any
failure 10 make any If the payments
required hy law or said regulations shall
work a forfeiture of all money paid on,
and all claims 10 the said land. with
out judicial proceedings. 10 being under
stood aud agreed that the object Of the
ing b0uiticd settler on the land
Upon this application the land was
awarded by the board 10 Hutchins ON
Dec. 20 1886. On the 10th day Of August.
1891. said Hutchins. joined by his wife,
without ever having settled upon the land
IN compliance with his contract OF the
law, by dcel conveyed all his interest
IN the land To appellant Pahrath. APP
pclant has also failed To- settle upon
the land. This suit was instituted by
the state on Aug u, 1870, ~ recover
the land IN controversy. alleging the for
fixture by Hutchins and bis vendee
Pafirath by reason Of their failure to
make settlement as required by the law
aud their contract Upon the trial of the
ease IN the court below judgment was
rendered for appellee from which this
appeal It taken.
OPINION.
The only question Of importonce pre-
scented In the brief of appellant il the
failure of the court below at his request
to charge the jury that the state was
barred of its right Of action by failing
To institute this suit within one year as,
il ~ claimed, Is required by section of
the law under which this purchase was
made. That section of the law Is as fol-
lows;
Lands when placed upon the market
shall be- sold IN the county or land dis
trct In which it Is situated. under such
authority and under such system of COM
petition as may be prescribed by said
land board; provided that no person
either in person or by agent shall pur-
chase from the stute more than one sec
ton Of land clnsscd as agricultural land
on AZ watcred land. or seven sections of
uuwatcred land: provided the board
may Ia their discretion require the pur-
chaser Of any particular section Of
watercd pasture land 10 take with the
same such number of dry sections as
they may designate. not 10 exceed seven
sections; and every attempt to evude the
limitation of this act as 10 the amount
or clHss of Hand one may purchase 10y
any device whatever shall be- deemed
fraudulent and the fraud may bc
shown and the purchase cancelled by the
state within one year from the date of
sale. provided that the agricultural lands
shall be- sold only TO actual settlers. etc"
Section : provides. That no sule of
agricultural land shall be- perfected. until
the proposed purchaser files an affidavit
that he intends that the land shall be-
actually s,@iled within six months and
In case Of failure 10 settle the same with
In that time the proposed purchaser shall
forfeit the money already paid on the
land"
We are Of the opinion that the limi-
tatiOn prescribed by section u does not
apply 10 The case iunde by this record.
The limitation prescribed by that section
wHs intended TO fix time within which
fraud perpctrcted nt tie time the con-
tract was entered into could be investi-
gated, and was not intended 10 have
application 10 failure on the pare of
the purchaser TO comply with a CON
tract made in good faith at the time
IL was entered into, Ii appellant had
induced the land board Ia award him
agricultural land under contract for
pasture land, or had attempted 10 pur-
chase more land than he was entitled To
under the law. this limitation would
apply; but We find no intention disclosed
10y this statue 10 relieve purchaser from
the forfeiture declared for a failure 40
comply with his contract To Purchase The
contract itself being valid at the time
N was made.
The only question submitted by The
court M It's charge was ~ to whether on
not the purchaser Hutchins. had settled
ON the land within six months after The
2olh day oW December, 1856 ana lie
Jury having buud that he had not. we nrc
OF the opinion that the Limitation of ono
year prescribed by section did hot bnr
the state. ~
Let the Judgment of the court below
DC III ah Things affirmed. (Signedl
HEAD, Associate Justice.
A PENSION THROUGH FRAUD.