The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-05-31
FORFEl1uREs ARE VALID.
% ns'd BY the Supreme Court i
frisb:c Us, Blum.
'foFfEl1fD UNDER THE ACT or 1897.
me Power Conferred on ~. -
"ncr OF The Land once i.
Held to Be Not Judicial.

Aus'in' Texas, May 90 --rar,r IN zoos
aoornay General Crane furnished lana
commissioner Baker with an on,,,o. \,
'ne eject that he had authority ,,naer -,
act OF 1887 to forfeit, without ,ua,o,,, ~
ee''aihment. lands sold under anv -
"n'ie 'here was delinquency in the nav
lueht on Interest. Slime that time A.
siahe position In the matter b,s haan
f1en'ly attacked and the courts OF civil,
"ppta's have in several instance. soe,,.a
against him; but today no was so,,,re,y
'ihpleatea BY the supreme court, which
as'sfseu the court of civil appeals of the
ihlfd district in l.lsbse VS.. Blum ana of-
h4insa The Judgment OF the lower cN:t.
ine iahd IN controversy was forfeited
W inc Land commissioner in May. 1895.
ana awarded tr.Sisse in December 3sji,
'neie having Dfen no interest paid on tie
,eihai purchase money since January /.
suit was brought by Blum to recover th.
.anu' piaihtin Gaming 1t under Hennick.
Inc original purchaser to wnom i, lv.s
awarded in 1875 Plaintifl was defeated In
ene district court OF Coke county but was
successful III the court OF civil appents
l,oni Where the case was carried to Inc
supreme court on writ OF error. The eour.
Oh civil appeals held that CONSTRUCTION
,ol the act OF 1887 that would give the com
i.lssioher or The general land office author
~ " ehter forfeltures Of land purohasel
49,, unaei previous acts would renuer that fact
unconstitutional, because il would yive IN
~ retroactive effect by which il would
violate the obligation of contract
Inc supreme court holds that where n
Ilsnt exists the legislature may give a
new remedy, provided it does not DEPRIVE
elther party OF substantial right. Furth-
or, the court holds that the word "for-
ieture is inaptly used in the statute II
says; There was no forfeiture because
I'M, the purchaser had acquired nothing but
rne right 10 acquire title by a compliance
Win the terms OF the contract and per-
romance of the conditions precedent which
were the payment of the interest and the
principai according to the terms expressed
~ tHe law and the agreement when Ben
blok iaiied to perform these conditions pre- |
'edent to his right to acquire title that |
leht lapsed and the State simply asserted |
Us paramount title against which there |
vas no claim Of right in Bennick or any |
me holding under him. This assertion of |
ne paramount title In the State was no |
more forfeiture than it would have been
bennick had bought the land from an
hhividual who, for the same reasons. de-
Jared Possession of the sale. Ii is said
nat the power conferred upon the COM
missioner of the land office is judicial.
Ut IN our opinion the act is no more ir
icial when performed by the commissioner
the general land office on behalf of the
tate than 1t would be II done by an in
ividual vendor or his agent" This is
cry important decision. as 1t settles the
.atus OF lands sold prior to the taking
nect OF the act of 1887, and will enable
le state to collect much overdue interest
ithout the necessity of expensive litlga-
on, about 100000 having already come
no the treasury from delinquents in spite
! the fact that many lawyers have bereto-
re ostentatiously questioned the sound.
ass OF Mr.. Cranes construction of said
It of 1897 'u
Other proceedings were had In the SUI
'eme court today:
Certified questions answered. Rancho
onto Land and Live Stock Company VS.
m. f. North. from Travis; W. T. Morris !
! j. A. Morgan ct al from Karnes; u !
oerstadt ct al VS.. State Of Texas ex rel
A. Armistead. from Marion; The CITY OF q
Paso VS.. Mrs. Frank Ruckman, from :
Paso. ,,
Set for June IL; r. Edwards vs. r. NJ
orton, from Wichita