The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-05-08
HIGHEST COURT DECISIONS.
Synopses of Opinions Handed Down
at the Latest Sitting,
RENDERED BY THF SUPREME COURT.
Certified Questions Must he Accom-
panied by the Facts Upon Which
They Are Bascd.

Austin. Texas, May 6,-Following are
synopses of the opinions delivered by the
supreme court today:
+. L. M'MANUS VS.. EDWARD *. DIRK
NEY EFT AL land suit, from Walker
county. Fourth distriot--Reversad and
rendered
McManus brought this suit against the
heirs of John Cameron, deceased, the heirs
Of +. Gonzales, deceased, and the heirs
of Emma II. B. Kleber, deceased. 10 quiet
title to the land described in the petition.
All of the defendants except the heirs of
Cameron were alleged 10 own jointly with
plaintiff the land in controversies and
third leagues of an eleven league
grant made originally to Jose Maria de la
Cara, situated in Walker. Montgomery
and san Jacinto counties. Tie heirs of
Gonzales appeared and adopted tie s.l!ega-
lions Of plaintiffs petition, but the heirs
of Mrs. klelber did not appear. The heirs
/ Of Cameron. by cross-bill. sought to recover
the land from the other parties,
| There VAS verdict and Judgmen, in the
trial court in favor of he heirs of Cameron
on their cross-action, and this Judgment
was affirmed ny the court OF civil APP
Jaals.
John Cameron acquired title to the land
T IN controversy during his lifetime, aud his
heirs claim through him. The o.her parties
claim through an administrators sale made
under an order of sale ISSUED hy tho probate
court To tho Administrator of John Cam
eFon which directed him to sell in the
! following language All Of Tho right title
aud interest Of John Cameron. doceused, to
about SIX or seven leagues Of land, more
lor lrss, situated partly in Walker county
and partly in Montgomery comfy. Texas,
! being part Of an eleven league tract of
land originally granted to lose Mara lie la
CARA, as the said land consists of detcchel
Fad separate Parcels OF various s;zes and
located in different places, within said
tract, whose several contents are unknown;
/ The administrator shall sell The whole
right, title and interest to the same at
once"
! Under this order the land in controversy
was sold in lSbS 10 Simon Mussina Tor S25.-
600 and the sale was confirmed and deed
made II this sale passed title. the plain
tiis are entitled to q Judgment against
the bcirs of Cameron for the aul. and the
c'her questions presented on both sides
become immaterial.
We conclude that in rl',king the order
OF sale under which the plaintiffs in error
cram tho land IN controversy. the probate
court of Cameron county intended to en-
] wer the administrator OF John Cameron
to sell all OF The land belonging TO the
estate and that 1t was the specific Intention
/ "l tho court to empower the administrator
| 10 sell the interest of the estate in the
eleven league Cara grant. The court had
/ jurisdiction OF the subject natter of the
SAFE ana OF the parties Interested in the
estate. 1t was therefore lawful FOR the
court to sell the land and the Intention
10 do so, which is indicated by the lam
E""se employed III the order, must lie en-
forced
Tho following language embraced in the
oaer, to-wit' AS the said land consists
p OF detached and separate parcels os "arious
s les and located in different places within
the said tract whose several contents are
lonknown, constitutes no part Of the de.
saription OF the land ordered sold h,it was
merely used by the probi:e court to show
the reason why 1t ordered a sale to be
made of the entire interest Of Cameron's
estate IN the grant instead OF having IL
sold in small tracts If. however. the Ian
gungc last quoted be regarded as an at
tempted description OF the land II must
DO disrcearded ard the order construed ms
! II tho words had not been embraced in
II, because as description the words arc
SHOWN TO he false and the other Ian
guage In the order sufficiently Identifies
the land. The judgments of the courts be.
low aro reversed and judgment il rcorered
for McManus and tho heirs of Gonzales
lnaming them) against the heirs of Cam
con.
Opinion by Brown. ].
Il, G. ALLEN VS.. TYSON JONES BUGGY
COMPANY motion for rehearing OF Ger.
tined questions In case from Navarro
county, Fourth district overruled.
Appellant insists that tho court must
answer the questions certified without ref
erence to the facts found and ta,aa IA,
tne court of civil appeals as the basis Of
the questions We have no jurisdiction to
decide questions that do not arise upon
the facts. and the facts must be found
and certified with the question The court
OF ciNil appeals made a clear and satisfac.
tory statement OF the allegations OF the
penuon and the facts found By that court
anu upon this statement. propounded the
questions submitted. II is Insisted that
tho questions prcsnnpose that the court
iof civil appeals found that the appellee was