The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-03-28

ing that, in the exercise or reasonable
diligence, he has acted upon well
grounded belief that he has acquired the
title. This question of good faith is, there
fore. more one of fact than of law. %
Tex, 194.) But we cannot say that the
court of civil appeals was wrong in its
conclusion on this issue because the appll-
cation does not advise us as to the state
of the evidence thereon. The mere be-
lief of the attorney who represented the
United States in making the purchase
that the title was good is not material;
Did he advise the agents OF the Uhlteu
States to this effect? Did they act upon
this advice, believing it to be true? The
record is silent upon these questions:
We may concede that the court below
, had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the ques-
ton as against the United States; for, as
we construe the judgment, the court has
not undertaken to determine the rights or
the United States. A judgment could
not have been given in favor of Stanley
and his co-defendants for money whlch
belongs to another.
If the United States, without submit
ting to the jurisdiction of The court, can
appeal from any judgment that has been
! or that might have been rendered in the
case. it occurs to us that they occupy q
very favorable but a very anomalous
position.
But we deem it unnecessary to decide
whether they are parties or not. Ii not,
the writ ought to be refused for tnaI
reason; if a party, it ought to De refused
upon the merits
| q, Intervenor Spence complains OF the
ruling of the court of civil appeals IN
holding that his suit was barred by thS
statute of limitations of five years. All
the facts required by the statute to COM
plete the bar concur, if the payment OF
taxes is not one of the necessary tacts.
art. 3193, r. S.. The United States IS
NOT required to pay taxes on lands such
as these. Or. S., Art. $3.50. Therefore
payment of taxes is not usual incident
of its ownership of such lands. (22 Tex,
633). The payment of taxes is usually an
incident of ownership, and a circumstance
which tends to show an honest belief, on
the part of one claiming under deed, IN
the Justice of his title. The words II
any," referring to taxes, in the hrSt artl,
Gle of the statute cited, show clearly that
it was not contemplated that cases might
arise in which, by reason of the exemption
of the property or the person who pos
sessed it. no taxes would be collectable
upon it; and that, in such a case, proof
of the payment Of taxes should not be
required. We conclude that proof OF the
payment of taxes by the United States
was not necessary. Therefore the appll
VI lHlSlNShoi h'pNhN~ 80 ''A'" ~
fused.
Sanchez VS.. S. A. & A. P. Ry. company
Suit by plaintiff in error, Sanchez to re
cover damages for personal injuries; from
Nueces county, First district.
Plaintiff, in leaving one of the depots
of defendant, stepped from the platform
on to the track and started to walk along
same when he was struck from behinC
by an engine and seriously injured. He
knew that the train which struck him was
due at about that time and the direction
from which it was to come. His view OF
the track was unobstructed, but he die
not look for the train. He could not heal
the noise of the approaching train, OF
account of the escape of steam from an
other engine standing near the depot anC
the noise occasoned thereby. The above
is the undisputed evidence of this case.
1. Ordinarily, negligence is a fact to bt
found or inferred from the testimony; bu
where, from the testimony, no inference
but that of negligence can be drawn, i
becomes question of law and the cour
may instruct the jury that negligence
has been established. go Tex, 16I
Such cases do not often occur But we arr
of the opinion that the undisputed evi
dence in this case established the fac
that plaintiff was guilty of negligence