Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-12-05

| .,,uSloN FL AL, trespass 10 try
rict-Affirmed.
The grant under which plaintiff claim.
ed was the older OF three grants which
were In conflict with each other. The
league grant In the name OF -. NJ
Sreene, and also a league grant IN tn.
name OF one Martinez were in conflict
with the Coy grant. and In conflict wi h
ehch other The plaintiffs claimed un-
DER the Coy grilnt and the defendants
Claimed under the other grants.
i. The third and fourth grounds as
I signed as error were not presented In
me briefs OF the parties to the court OF
cNn hpp.his, and we can not. therefore,
the thirteenth assignment OF error OF
sne III chants, the heirs of Desmuke,
ma wharton Branch. AS presented Il
nheir brief 70 the court of civil appeals
Is In this language: 1.-THE court erred
N Tende ring Judgment against tho de-
tteGdahn t.' Wharton Branch for the sum Of
This assignment does not present the
.blcction urged in the. application for
the Writ Of error; 1t did. not cali the
tho fact that the Judgment below pro-
v'ded for q forfeiture OF . portion OF The
land 1diudged to Wharton Branch, upon
his failure 20 paw the money within the
time specified, and the court Of clvi,
appeals did not so understand the as
signment, but treated 1t as an assign
ment raising alone the question of the
correctness of the judgment for TIE
money due by Branch 20 Houston, We
therefore, can not consider the error of
the trial court In putting the condition
Of forfeiture In the Judgment, Tor the
reason that the auction was not pre-
scented 70 the court of civil epp,als. The
granted unon this assignment 81 error,
hut We did not notice. az the time int
It had not been prnnerly presented to the
court Of civil nurenls.
Affirmed. Opinion by Brown. j.
II. rKENZIn W. coMMsroNwg or
original application for mandnmus-Re-
fused.
This is an application for writ of man
damus TO compel the respondent. the COM
missioner of the general land Office. 10
execute to the petitioner lease Of certain
sectors OF land set apart for the benefit
Of the common schools.
IT is alleged that on application was
made by tho petitioner 10 lease the land
ut ? cents per acre, and that the reSpon-
dent refused To accept the bid for the s9le
reason that the seventeenth section OF ,hc
act of the Twenty-fourth legisln tire, IN
relation to the public school and asylum
lands, passed on April l. 1895, which au-
thorlzes a lease AT Il minimum price OF .
cents per acre, was 80 amended by the
act On the same subj set, approved April
10, 1870, us 10 htillsNt llEl VI dhtIhllAs W
lease for legs sum than z cents. 1t "
cohtendcd that this amcndatory act liz
void because II passed the Legislature
while the act which II proposes to amend
was In the hands OF the governor and
before the ten days allowed by the con
stitutlon for his actio1 upon II hua OK
plred, and before he had acted upon the
bill.
The questions presented are!
4. Have we power TO grant the writ Of
mandam rs against the head OF depart
q Is the amendatory act OF April i6,
1876, void? and
3, II both questions be answered In the
affirmative, do the allegations OF the pc.
tition make a case Tor awarding the writ
prayed for?
l. In 1851 an act was passed denying 70
all the courts of this State the right ie
issue the writ of mandamus against any
OF the officers OF the executive depart
ments OF the government Of THIS state
Gswg is p "A Ky the was sS enc
powered to confer original jurisdiction on
the supreme court to issue wits OF mnn-
dnmus In such cases as II might specify,
except as against the governor OF the sthie
is Texas, 622). In pursua ice. OF this
power the legislature In 1872, In the act
organizing the supreme court, enacted the
court, or any Justice thereof, shall have
power to issue writs of - mnndnnus
] and all 9th sr writs necessary to enforce
the jurisdi tion of the court, ana In term
time or vacation may isgle wi'lts Of
s'S mandainus against any officer Of
the state. government, except the gov
ernor.". uaws lSe, y, ~ Both thee ,,.
Revised Statutes. ne one as article s'i
and the other w article l%l, -.
The provision contained IN article 10Y
/ of the act Of April 49, 1892, did not repeal
section 4 OF the act OF ISL. II merely re-
, strlcted the operation OF the former law
In 70 far as # applied TO tho supreme
court. The commissioners who complied
the Revised Statutes could not have omit
ted section OF the act OF 1872 without
transcending their authority, They might
court from its operation. as. the, leglsla-
ture had done by the act OF 1899. This
they did not do. and the two provisions
were Incorporated IN the revlsion as re-,
legislature, which adopted II. SO we have
a body of statutes passed by the iesisla-
ture as one act, when contacts two pro- pro-
dieting. As 20 the point OF conflict, which
must yield? we are not able 20 di9tin-
guish the question from that which arises;
In an ordinary statute; All parts OF the
statute must be looked to- and the legis'
lative intent when discovered must gov.
ern. Article 9i6 clearly manifests that u
] was the purpose OF the legislature 10 pur-
s,ic the policy, or which n way had been
laid out by tho provision quoted from
section attlsle Of me Sohs' hsd neS, az
adopted by the legislature In lsa2 IN us-
! dninr tho Jurisdiction OF the suprfm me
court and TO continue the power pre-
N1ousiy granted TO issue the writ OF man,
dnmus 10 the heads OF the departments OF
The State government Article 4s1l, on
the other hand. SHOWS purpose 70 *
empt these officers from such wits Ihit
does not override article $40 for, the rul'
Ia that where a general Infection " eS-
pressed and the act expresses also PAT
ticulur intention incompatible Win W.
general intention. tht particular iht y,
lion is to be considered In the nature o.
nm exception @ Bling, ND. We concIuu,
OF mandamus against any hslu Oh s'at'
department in a proper case
y He who claims that statute nus
been passed in vi5latlon OF some pfovisio,
OF the constitution, should he able u
point out the particular provision or ppr,so
Visions that have been intrinIod- In
constitution cf this State nowhere *
nressiy prohibits the legislature iron
amending a bill which has bcef, sent I.
The roycrnor, and which may become :
law before II has actually become spch
Does tha exercise OF such power inql
rectly conflict with any provision or tn'
Fundamental law? No such conhictna
nrnvisiou suggests itself 10 our mind
we 10 not see that the exercise OF w
mower can IN any manner reStram or "
3 ferfere with the preroentlvcs or my othei
department OF the State 9oyorhin nj, o'
OF my officer OF the state unless PCT
chauce II be those OF the goYerncr.
Does Il restrict tic governor prsrpsa
1.-Two OF approving or Disappearing pro
nosea ierislati5n? We think II clear tina
II docs not. The effect Of the nmendatori
..s... .,,s o., cxnrcee the Intention tina