The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-03-11
,..es Of Decisions Handed Down
at the Last Sitting.
kEION IN THE LAND SIDING CASE,
!. ruo Hundred thousand Acres
s.,,ed-Iu Favor of the State.
Civil Appeals Overruied.


!. State Of Texas, acting by her at
General C. a. Culberson. agains
Iouston and Texas Central Rallwa,
,nv and Frederick p. Olcott to re
,IOSo acres of land. Appellant.
. general demurrer, a general denla
nlea to the jurisdiction. This plea
. jurisdiction set up the fact thai
Is Dillingham; was. at the time the
,as brought, receiver of The railway
nv, appointed by the United State.
Of the Eastern District of Texas
aid receiver was In possession of the
sued for, ana was authorized by the
to defend all suits IN the name OF
,rpany. il was claimed that billing.
vas a necessary party TO this suit
ltrtifcates and patents for the land
Il we're issued TO the railway com.
for sidings and turnouts. Plain.
prayer asked a cancellation OF these
HATES and patents, The trial cour,
that there never has been any ac.
bpssession by any one Of the lands
|ntroversy, they being open unim-
n lands
third question certified Is MS fol.
"Was the receiver, Dillingham;, a
sny party to the suit and did the
err In overriding the plea to tho
Ict!on7'
N the view that we take OF the
question, ii is unnecessary for us To
n the first and second questions
ke FN. Revised Statutes. provides
fTte defendant In the action (of
b TO try title shall be the person in
kion II the promises are occupied
be person claiming title thereto in
hey are unoccupied," Article AS,
y that "When a party is sued for
the real owner or warrantur may
himself or may be made a party de-
Il In the suit"
hand In controversy was not occu-
any enc and the defendants ala
lin to hold it as tenant of the re-
nor was the receiver bound to
n either OF them in the character
|rantor. If he had been either, he
not have been "A necessary party.
might have been made n party at
,ance Of the defendant, or on his
nilon.
the State instituted this suit It
I'd to the defendants an issue Of
bd Il they did rot claim title to the
hey should have entered their dis
BY filing "A plea OF not guilty,
dnAd issu" with the state upon
estlon OF tito. The fact that a
Ierson claims title to the land in
ersy will not cutitle the defend
this suit to have such third person
party thereto. If the dcfend1n
II claim as tenant Of such third
II a superior legal title 20 that
ftif be in another person, the de-
may show that fact Us defeGse,,
will not cntitle him to force the
and the owner of such superior
lltigate their rights in that suit
rs. the answer of the defendants
,ase did not show such a state of
entitled them to have the re
Eade party defendant. 90 Texas,
"a by Brown, j.
ORD ct al va. YORK COUNTY
Gs BANK; suit to wind up 4
nd 10 divide tho proceeds and un-
operty among the parties SntitlCdt
Grayson county. Fifth iuui'ial dis-
fragment OF court of civil aproals
NJ and that of trial c )urt affirmed.
French ana w. p. Rice and other
tontributed money for the nur-
.a'e uacts OF lailu near Dci'ls"n'
The tile TO this land was taken
ans of p. Il. Fairbanks, trustee,
"useu an attachinent 10 De
sad lands as the property OF
sla hce, who had transferred
sruve interests I'm said trust to
,les, OF which transfer the bank
ellce at the time Of the levy.
Mlt the bank claims the interests
and Rice under said attachment
n, and their trAusfcrees claim
atisn pr res nj Sp' is. WIZ whstSer the
Ut i to levy ana da 're IN w Tp' Of f'a at
y court decided this question in
sa, Nv !, ana a.i the court Of civll APP
suitable interests r ST Were Mere not SUBJ
|it sui at common law is ele-
khanSe t ~ NC Oh " mares
ortain wi, t"e Itii in law ~
: ubsc, cA, a az least, nlaue a
procoo Jt INJURY anu coSil1ailco
Il n ,Stv e. we thlnk the trust
4 ,rn ss tteaied must ne clear
'' '''' ''''''' u ''''
bis court bas ,avar r,d,r,,t,ar
pvn any $50 &C. ~ et "iIue' .1fe
n stlitthi RUE ny WulcH
al q 81