The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-06-17
|''lsts rol'R7S'

ao s 's'' i'''''f'' by '''
=. " MY, :. T. NJ. ROB
u 81 A. A. s ASIDE a sheriff
81 !. ,,,ei of land ION
~ Fourth ''S''
,,irti x,,,d . NOR.
} ". u Ma "a, x controversy np {
"a ~ NV virtue Of tn sler :.
M - M M thai took ritc, 81
y TN r.a a. Robertson pad SS'
/ A. /. .. ,,Ile ! aionc 3 no ,,,,i as .
-. - y r ,,,rol, for svola'ns
: Mt ri 4, ,,,nisr a valid Jung
Oh n sta. Uni I'M, When ths pro.
~. Er'l:n. ar s,.,h sale Is enor-
M, ~ ~, md disproror,i'nr.il.. IA
0N r" mi sold. slight iiios
X .s,,nri.nt to JUSTIFY ~
.' hr a direct processing
q \, nice paid for Inc Lana
mis,,t,r,s,cond part al ~
NV ..,'rst.d by the pur. has'
y. si i,,,on wss .ssu,d hsforl
DvNa titcuuv" -.r, Of fhN court
know. wihnnt any
"rt, levy indorssd rron
Nm |" :. 1dsier,,yely described
~, /, d!ffirnll ioi = plir-
INA us locality. am u
VI .,,ssr,s Of one OF all 'iihe
,,scr,ior. nor I'D II app a."
}, .so.s ,i,lc or right to the
y y sd under that process.
/, ne inafe1ua y ~ pr, p
.i,r in connection with the
'SrI sn-,l,iei by the officers IN
nv sr,ing the process. Is SUI
b d nan 4 court Of equity II
~ srtsc, The rlgh's OF ~ :
sa 1. defendant insist that
~ "a entitled 10 recover he
'a,l ,,y, fail.d 10 refund or
NJ Il IA him the m9Y"X paid
= M SHE. FL, We think that
WA account for tho rents
v ,rr,i from the use OF the.
same has heen in his pos
" N can he heard to com
v fs omission TO tender back
i. l, money.
: /! sur: should have instructed
! Plaintiffs, and the iudsmen,
. radeed for them.
Brown. ].
NV rrr AL We. ]. r. SANDER
" ,rt,piss 10 try iiil". from
y NV Second lisf'lci--.ludr
I. n court Of civil APPEALS To-
II NJ. II trial court affirmed.
district court Of Wichita
= = kd Judgment in favor Of
Y, X ne land In ccA;rcv Arsy
I si.aian,s in error IN this
!, |, In. on the ground that
II k,tIon thereof was invalid
q aiying been made by wiz
izicste" certificate when no
!. .Alale had in fact ever been
\ " the appeal from The jude
aihe state, ne tornusd -
rald land cert.licate owned
!, piK OF the land iecovcred
hplk bought the interest
NJ h this location. aud pat
mud thereon II. lSpe.
M x l@2. after the iudg-
In d the State had been nj.
tpsil defendants IN error
/ w OWNERS OF a wand land
t1tM same on the land IN
\ pknt to Faux.
p to.plaintifts. relying upon
5r,sd the former sued de-
pkpass TO try title and re-
st for the land in con
eGstrl,t court This judg-
snd and rendered for The
ppeal 10 The court OF civil
o. civil appeals in its rul-
upon the theory that the
Rby DE Cordova was VOID
mtion :. article II of the
lnlth provides thai all zen
Itheatss heretofore or here
tn!l be, located surveyed
oa!y upon vacant and m
ilnllc domain and not Upon
~ Or edui'ahly owned under
~, It was not tho purpose of
-'ai 10 validate or nfeecr in
" class Of titles nent.oned
~ holders thereof and the
Ivy 10 prevent such holders
gsufmd ny new locntions So
~ continued 10 hold under
y did not inhih' the ntine-
,a py the State against M
M ulie to cancel same and
aug, ana We are of the op,n-
,a me land IL recovered hv
!, w tnch holder In such SUIT,
Tlong 10 the class of lands
y said provision and It's
:, phser prohibited thereby.
~, 70 oe The general rule that
80 OF a court of competnnt
,aes the status or title Of
aasers 10 the decree uav
IN .na same upon the assuulp-
~. n ascree. unless IT should lie
", proceeding SGT aside. cor
nh. atween the parties there
~ W tille A. the date of It's
'n rendition of tho decree of
,"l,, of Wlchiia county in
~ Il. slate having fixed the
ttsjn ~. lana as not being land
,,a,. .he purview Of said con
"sion and established the
r,, y me State. DE- CordoNn
\ s ". y. whereby the State
E-,,. a 70 locate upon such lan1s
MI hi" III, .poks the truth. had the
ss,xltn the land upon i'm, as-
s'.s!'c' Of course ia the CON
n s v. aeoree being set aside by
,,s sa' Of the court ~ civi, nm
MINED mat "i the district
" Dsnman, j..
Ii X ESaA,N ;sAs AND TEXAS
4 M, s,,oMPANY VS.. SAM II
amaze eainst the company 10
frsm ,,i r,snliing from personal
,ls,,ss mn county. Fourth dis
ssa and remanded.
~ The da'e of the accident.
n, M's''n 70 ana 70 years old.
, ,,., oarl charged the .iory in
NJ n nun If he was guilty OF
.,,. *Nsenee, could not recover
, !. inflicted tho iniul!es
nv, W 'nT'ush gross negligence.
n ,b,o lr counts have express-
she-obu,o, e'fine of c0mpsratl, :
as bma party who 10 guilty
ias,her is permitted 10 re-
spl,,y party because the de-
IS Ia. .. greater degree of
a!k chs,sune defendant in error
led by IT, e Mas erroneous. IL