Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-02-25
The HIGHER COURTS.
synopsis of Decisions Rendered by
the Supreme Court OF the
State Sitting at AustIu.


Austin. Tex. Feb. 24-Tbe f,,,,,.,n.
s'nYpsN OF supreme conrt decisions
rendered at its last sitting:
Robert Spencer vs.. L. NJ. Brown q, al.
Writ of error to the third district. both
parties claiming from common source,
1t was held by the court Of civil appeals
that defendants IN error were entitled to
Judgment Il the Judgment through which
plaintiff in error claims was not so re-
corded as to give lien upon the land. The
sole ground On which II was held that the
abstract Of that judgment was not
properly recorded was that the certificate
auihenticating it was not recorded with
the abstract. Under articles 3i54-5.T
and 3l03 1t Is clear that clerk Of a
county court would have no lawful power
TO file aud record an abstract Of judg-
ment unlcss II was certified as the statue
requires, but there is nothing in the
statutes referred 10 which seems TO re-
quire that the certificate OF authorization
shall also be recorded. The certificate
under the hand and scat Of the clerk max
ing the abstract Is the evidence Of
Outhentlcity Of the abstract, with
ont which the clerk called upon To
record It has no authority to
record; but IN the absence Of a statnte
requiring such certificate Of authendca-
tion TO be recorded with the abstract
courts have no power or right TO hold
that the record of such n certificate as
well az the abstract is essential TO Hen
II Il contended. however, that all Of
title IL. ch 1, r. s., applicable to judg-
ment liens is subject to the requirement
of article 429S. That article was the
18th section Of the act Of May II. 1916.
and Il applies TO every instrument Of
writing authorized TO he recorded by him
which is deposited with him for record
with the acknowledgements proofs,
Ailidavits and certificates written on or
attached 70 the same" Whether the
abstract of a judgement Is, within the
meaning Of the statue relied upon an
instrument Of writing may be doubted.
for II has been held that Judgment
Is not such an instrument. At the time
the act of 1916 was enacted It evidently
had no application to the record OF iudg-
ments or abstracts of judgments for tho
purpose Of acquiring lien; for neither
at that time nor at any time prior 10 the
enactment VI the present law was there
a law in force through which lien could
he acquired by recording and iniexiny
an ubstmct Of q judgment. Prior 90
tho law of 1890 we are not advised of
i,,..,,,,,,,. r,ro-i't 49, ' a,,, ,, w
ugs'"'iI'ss9 49,, "r ,, Ia, r an9 w
-. 80 1eiG 80 br1,a o,,,','.b ~ ,sv
NV VI 90 Wi "s'"u e,u" ,5- J" S'i,
G ;,,3 ~ ,ir. H A.. "i, ,i ,,, W
Jg'-,i,i, y ~ a., ~, '',,' y
oi UPi,ilon 'ilhl y 1{us'lt uot 10 pe a. al
i9lei "g.use u un, y - iu W. iN
a,Ti,n.. "ns p p,o.i m1 ,,,.n,s nytisrHy
hIl,irins ilei's uhe' yu,A,e y,iQsut
was lhleiil'u TO ue ''.nplgte Nl'1ln t'eil,
Nln 70 n"se No. ng'ySs9,{ .tia''op 70
W'nsr IN" lt-u'H,''is ,vs,as,"S.oI y, IN
slr9inenlSS p'Tthlt,eu 81 relI,t'I ~ p ig
T'Eisterel' ~ pceSetlnIgS ,he u9'N l9
wien sueh aIee9'I mil, alla' pe maui Wy
uetSr1lihes WI. oN',gr sun NJ .l''ae "
9hu u9,A uoS lel.e 'n'Sc tl'Hs7 10 -
deterhlneh oy the yeheFW ~" o.
rSslsiIl'luh. " pres I'3es WA. ~
anslraei snall SNOW anu IoiS no, Iequlr'
t te reE's,Iauph or lll' ti,'HW Juus'h isll
Such NhsUacts 40 nor give hen or nave
any .S.uSet WAateyer from me tiihe V'ey
~ nleu anu oeeguse lhty are ilel' nu
the men IS cIealeu anu ho'los even "nl
Mntn Tie uldtIucL is recorded ana M