The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-01-30

the description in the pretended decd does
not apply TO me property sold. We answer
IN NJ, ~ ~ tusa ,',9 ~, NV "esa',nu.
or,ic,a Az dos not rofar nov shn,id 4, ~
ar,,,oa 10 otber lana ,hon Tho, dasorthed
j., ,ho docd
Question a.>ybar n,oi,tif, suaa ,or land
no, convevad bv Ito citv tax decd c,air,ina
,ndar tbe daod oan do,andant. n,ata ,bair
dosaneos q, a. v,thou, oomri,,ira n.,,h a..
,erms ~ tho s,a,uteo Wv
NJ. ,n,uor tho tb,ra o,,.s,io,, e.; a., 40
firp,,tiy.
In onawor 10 tho rour,b question ,yo win
cot, ,ha, Tho rr,ing In Tho caso ~ IJonr,a,ta
we 1rustis az Toxos "a doos M, af,act tho
da,or,n;notion of thc o,,ostio,s cart,fiod in
,ba nroeont ooeo mr. oneuor ia ,ho ,uos
,io,s cort;fiod In ,ba case c,,od ,ho,,o ,r,,
confined r. The fire, n, tbe alternative
,uoetjons erhmittod because fron, Tho fao,s
the,o oor,is,aa a. anroorad that tba saoord
~ III. ,Itarrotivo cros,ions while hyno.
~, .ino, In ,nrr, u,as a. tao, ohstroc,
OBLIVION bv Gaines r
pApr Noop, ut A. -, CApnr1Nu
nT.ccT mt AZ ,rosra.s 10 ,r,, ,itlo.
f.n,, NJ -, no,,,,.,, T'hi,a a;s,r,o,
po,'arsad and rordorod
Al tne oea'h OF ms uea'h Jonas hu,ie'
owned large landed estate situated In dir.
ferent counties In Texas, among which was
tho ,ard In THE sui, IT.. lar sur,,iv,,c
mn ms WHO 'afoihe Emu '"o chiiureh'
George ana fannie' inc iatter peihg MI
nor. Inc lands constituted community
property Naroiihe butier having suose-
quentiy married Biagse. she. joined by her
husband and the two children, filed pc
tiuon In the district court OF Galveston
county in 1869, alleging that they were the
owners a
bill of particulars made an exhibit; that
Caroline Blagge was entitled 10 one half
CT the same, ana mat the SAID george anu
FanAtc were entitled TO the other nan !,
that the land was not susceptible OF diVls-
ION IN hlnn so AS 10 make an equilaole par
luton; that 1t was necessary mat paru-
ton of said estate should be made anu n
public sale OF the lana under order OF the
judge of the court was prayed Tor inc pc
titicn was signed for the four petitioners by
"MeLemorc d Hume, attorneys Tor the par
ties in interest. me EXHIBIT described the
land in suit as follows; Mci>ennan coun-
~, John ), snyder to Jonas butier' one
fifth OF two leagues situated wnere the city
of Waco is now built; i. Z. Chambers,
grantee; recorded III Milan county 'gi'lhs
book and page) The court granted lhe
order of sale as prayed Tor Inc sherlfI
was also ordered to pay the proceeds lhto
court. and the clerk directed 10 pay tue
same TO the parties.
The return of the sheriff shows that inc
land in suit by description above was sold
TO McLemon for $1,000. There was ueed
from the sherih TO McLemorc. rms sun Is
by Mrs. Blagge TO recover the lana from
efendanis. who claim under McLemore; a
H. Jority OF the judges OF the court OIL ciNii
appeals held that the dlstriet court OF Hhl-
weston county mad no jurisdiction ana that
the proceedings referred 10 wote ,or p'nu,
ing upon Mrs. blagge az judgment anu
did not diVest Der oil her utio 10 d ohs-
half interest n tile land IN SUIT H. as
was held by thal court the proceeh,ns "aa
merely an application Tor the appointment
of I'm agent to SOIL the land' u Wouiu De
difficult to tina authority IN the CONSULT
ton for the exercise oil such power Vo'
Texas, BOD but IL WIS more-it was esseh-
TALLY IL suit for partition, the parties eN-
pressing a WISH or preference 10 nave uhe
land sold by the sheriff AS part oil .he pro-
,, cedure. The fact that all the parties we're
joined as plaintlfis instead Oh SONS pelhs
pade defendants does not attee' the ques-
! tlon. The only real issue III suci cases %
whether the portion when may pe aii'. ~
to each is his fair share oil the whoie' oh
this issue each Is necessarily antagonisuc
10 the other during the enlire rroceeuins.
| The allegation that just partition couiu
not be effected without sale. ana INC
prayer for an order OF sale, was not U'huine
on the court, but upon nearing IL h'sht
have dsregarded this and proceeded 10
partition in kind. since minor was IN
torestcd it was the duty OF the court 70 u
nuire into and determine the truth OF 'he
allcgation before entering any decree, ana
in this collateral attack the presumption
that the court dld so IL conclusive 49,,