The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-04-14


Medina river and patented TO the heirs
Of Catherine Arnold, deceased. Catherine
Arnold left a son, whom the plaintiff claims
to have been her only heir and whose
name was Daniel Arnold Daniel Arnold
died In lSiS. leaving seven children of
whom Holly Arnold and Hondrick Arnold
were two. Hendrlck Arnold died IN 1919,
leaving six children Among them was
Martha uendrick through whom plaintiff
claims
We granted this writ upon two grounds,
We were inclined to think that the court
erred in its charge MS 10 the plaintiffs
claim of ,ltlc through common source
also that tho evidence lndisputably showed
that plaintiff had small hut definite in
tcrest In the innd. a careful consider ,tiou
of the case. satisfies us that we were mis-
taken as to both propositions
L. Besides Attempting to prove titlo TO
an interest I'm the land by regular descent
of heIrship from tho patentec tho plaintiff
oudcayored 10 chow that he and the de-
fondant claimed title under HcniricI Ar
noIj ma tho common source and 10 estab-
lish the suporior title as emanating from
Tint source. For this purpose he intro
duced two tax deeds to John lanes for the
two half leagties in controversy respect
lively, In eirh Of which, among other re-
citals, il was stated that the land de-
scriboL had been assosscd for taxes ms the
property of John Brothers as the admins
traitor Of nendrick Arnold s estate and that
the taXrs had not been paid: aud zach Of
,yhich purported to convey 20 james all
tho right tltle and interost nf John Broth
ers ms administrator aforesaid and Of
every other claimant ,yhomenevnr In and
to" the land They also exhibited quit
cIair, 1e,Gs from James to IoIly Arnold
dated In 1852 to the two half ieneues re-
spectivciy. together WITH chains Of con
yeyances from HOLLY arnold down 70 the
sovnrnl defondnnts I'm the suit
A grantee In n decd which purports TO
convey The interest of two or more per-
sons in the land but which does not specify
the particular interest OF either docs not
by accepting tho conveyance admit a pre-
either the one or tho other. In n volun-
tory conveyance by Two grantors the ac-
centnnco by The grartee is an admission
TINT both had an interest, out unless the
specific interest intended to be conveyed
IL named or deaer,hea II ~ nov s"Gu u" t,t hn
oua 'ion ii ,ho ''m ar,Ios AZ viii enable The
p;aintiff to recover any definite interest
by showing IN connection with tho deed
right to the interest OF mat grant
OF whose .llie no u,% 10 mia case ,rbe
~ r,,iaJ ,,,o,, ma oho,ying that Hem
a. 49, .rr1iH ,s thn rommon source nur
ul!.N H'i,unr =" nt o,,I,, bis ti,tr bnt lin,
porls 10 conXuy mo- W",y ~, ,,hn','yocrer in
u esorS o'Ia, W. oorci,,In maj Tho
.,,ni LIE ',oii,, f.,Icd IN nrovr n supe,lor
p,alh,nl "n'iis so,,.o o,J nm tbe
'itle from CulhIiiui s"u' ~, go .,a ,,,r,
court might prop,ry anFH Ho s.s"i ~ ,nw mr.
not 10 ooHSi"oi ''u WV '' ''' ''' ''
pose -, o.,,,. ,ovond
u inc evidence noas n"' , nom n,yund
con'roversy Ina, i'e ,and ~, ,he date or his
any ,nteT,st im ,no y ,nna fonns that he
death, The jury eViaehl.y ,onna VA. IA
iid not own any Inherent ,, anr has nn.
~ a". ~" .,a,a, Wa c,n mi saw that
The finding is wl,hoh' e''ucheo =" pup
port H. AHirmen'
Opinion by Gaines, o. j.
v
EAGLE MANuFAcTuxxiN ear, THMr o,,es.