The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-12-03
MUCH ADO ABOUT Mn

Tespcnnence. 1--Ihe court OF cixt, l..>d
Of the Austin district. In the e. f. n
& II. Blum, appellants, Va ~ b u.
appellee, recently handed Icxn .s'.:z
which has unnecessarily disturb 'lg
essayists who. without taxing SI,:3
caution to read said opinion. ,r|
themselves In maze Of specul,s,s, 81
its effect
Briefly stated the case u - 49,!
On December 10, 1884, appellant ,;s
e4V acres OF state school fand iS'7x
county from u. +. Gay, who Oh So,
z, 1881, had acquired said Hard ~. :41.
Bennick, who had beeu awarded N
state on Noven Der %, 1ss3 ,.s2
land act Of 1853, the provision~ ,3y q
act having been complied with y
On May rs, 1895, without judsrEaslSI
tafnment, the commissioner Of ~ 53
eral land office, under the provfc1,l
| the hand act OF 1895, forfeited ths pas
nen-paymsnt of Interest due for ~ Z
| erdiug January /, 1882, aud On 1.{
| Der is, 1895. appellee made appNcs1,z
I purchase 1t as an actual settler ~
| the meaning Of the act OF 1895. ana
awarded him on December "a. ~
! 1886 appellants brought a suit Of trSsI
to try title against appellee who snS9is
I by general demurrer. plea of nof
and general denial and the dsstffc ~
OF Coke county rendered judgment ~
appellants, which Judgment was -
| and Judgment rendered in favor \
pellants by the Austin court OF eiv1
pealz,
In reversing the Judgment OF IT,
Y -
reasons for SO doing.
| The first reason was that If thu y
1895 could be held to apply to Land
chased under the act OF 1888 the fnf{s
| forfeiture was had on May 49, ISL
failure to pay interest due for ~
| ending January i, 1892. Section IL Il r
| act OF 1895 gives authority 10 forfek =
| the first OF November OF each year. 4 p
| interest then remains unpaid, conseG1nE
| ly the time when a forfeiture couiA w.
occur under the act OF 1885 was i
| month OF November following the ~
\ effect of said act, no authority for ~
| mary forfeiture OF title by virtue ~
| existing prior to that time. hence u u
| of authority for the forfeiture attsus
| in May, 1895.
/ The courts remaining reason ~ =
\ versfng the case was that the legnAl2
had no authority to change the coo1<
I under which the purchasers acquired III
| title Under the act of 1898, It's opinion ~
| that because OF the set OF Febrmzy |
! 1855. failure TO pay the interest 90 (
| work summary forfeiture ct puryh1
made under the act Of 1888 prior 70 n
| rl.ary %, 1885 After the latter act ~
| into effect, says the court, 1t became
| OF the contract under which the purcAn
\ held his lands. and the subseauent
| OF 1895, which sought to- deprive hin
/ the benefits OF this act, changed the g
| tract and burdened his title with a
| ditiou which had ceased to exist by vtfsl
| of the act OF February %, 1855.
| Incidentally the court expresses thsell
| ton that the act Of 1887 and the z
amendatory thereof are prospective
not retroactive. and that summary 4
| FIXTURES can not be worked under til
purchases OF school land made unde
act OF 1883 prior TO February %, 1889
court also holds that 1t is clear TIL
| Anderson case can not be regarded a. ~
| ruling, limiting OF modifying the c.
| Berreudo Stock company vs. McCarU
| DIS I'd durtL blt llEAhS III
Of school lands prior to tho taking q
| OF the act OF 1887,
Now there is nothing new or otaru
| in all this Decisions from the courts
| opinions from the attorney general
partmeut have been plentiful on 3
| sides OF the question since the pazs1xs
\ the act cif 1887, and there are two g
| now before the supreme court on wits
| error In which the courts OF civil appe
/ at San Antonio and Fort Worth have
\ MED the retroactive effect of the ana
i or 1887 and the acts anlendatory tnefN
I Yet a great flourish has been and Is -
| made in print over the reversal q
| Blum case, some Of those who have
| tempted. without Investigation. TO a.
| Il. going so far as to aver that tue ~
| court has declared Unconstitutional III
| OF 1897, empowering the cDn1niissfon4'
the general land office under certain
/ dfticns to forfeit for ncn- payment @9
| terest purchases made under any ecL
| though as a matter OF fact said act
L no way involved In the case. VA
| Furthermore. the act OF 1887 simply 4
vides a change of remedy and does ~
tempt to clothe the land eomEiisna
with authority to make summary f9
ures, as Ii gives each delinquent pureI
day in court, ard to attack ITS g.:
nationality Is to attack the States unsZ
tfeanble right to protect itself IN tne l.
Of hts school lands. L.A.y