The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-11-16
MANY LAND HOLDERS AFFECTED
ny THE DECISION OF THE supnpNp
COURT IN sCHwARz VS.. M,CALL.
"''r"c''oh OF the LAW by the Lana
commissioners Is Held to BE
Erroneous.

! Austin, Texas. November 15--Tha an.
Ipreme court this morning overr,,as ~
t'on for rehearing in schwarz VS. Mccall
Aostracuy stated, the question in this
case Is, can bona fde purchaser of a
section OF school land from one who has
purchased 1t from the State and resided
upon 1t for three years as an aetna, se,-
lier purchase an additional section Of
iand from the State as p"o"!ded in arti-
! Gle 42lSf of revised statutes. without
himself becoming a settler or resident
upon either section? This question was
answered in the negative BY the court
last May and today it declined to change
It's former position in the premises, hold
ing to the opinion formerly expressed
that although the language of the article
IN question is somewhat obscure and diff
ncuit OF construction 1t not only fails TO
snow that 1t was the intention of the leg
lslature to depart from the spirit of the
land act itself and the well established
policy OF previous legislatures by allow
ing either an original purchaser who has
resided for three years upon the land SO
purchased, but who has ceased to reside
upon 1t or his vendee, who has never
settled upon the land to buy other lands
within radius of five miles of the orig
inal section. AS the court understands
1t the language of the article rather
leads to the conclusion that the purpose
was to require that both the original pur-
chaser and his vendee must be an actual
settler upon the parent section, in order
to give right in any case to buy add-
tional lands. This decision affects thou
sands OF sales of school land made by the
State since August 1897, the land conf
missioner's construction of the land hav-
ing been to the contrary of that placed
upon 1t by the court, which will make
business for the next legislature in the
validating line unless 1t should choose
instead to refund the amounts collected
from the numerous victims in the case.
The following proceedings were had In
the supreme court today:
Applications refused: George r, AL
len VS.. A. w. Courtney, from Chlldress
Texas and Pacific Railway Company vs. !
N, P. scruggs, from Callahan; Western I
Union Telegraph Company vs.. J. l..
Carter, from Cooke San Antonio and
Arkansas Pass Railway Company VS.. Nam
ME II. Morgan, from Nueces; Interna
tional and Great Northern Railroad Com
pany VS.. l.. o. Bibolet. from Anderson;
Postal Telegraph Company OF
Texas VS.. H. VI. Coote, from Galveston.
A. c. Hickman VS.. Gulf, Colorado and
Santa Fe Railway Company, from Lam
pasas; Forrest Hooker ct al. vs. Scottish
American Mortgage Company, Limited,
from Travis Missouri, Kansas and Texas
Company Of Texas VS.. J. M.
Nail. from Cooke.
Application dismissed: Mrs. ]. A.
Hanna ct al VS.. International and Great
Northern Railroad Company, from
Application dismissed for want OF ju-
Fort Worth and Rio Grande
Company VS.. E. c. Harrell, from
Brown.
Certified question answered: A. Q.
Johnson VS.. C. A. Elmcn ct al, from
Harris.
Motion for rehearing overruled; Mat
VS.. J. S. Mccall, from Fisher.
Motion for rehearing submitted: CAL
weston, Harrisburg and San Antonio Rail-
way Company VS.. 7. T. Adams, from
Harris.
. Submitted: Interstate Building and
Loan Association VS.. w. l. Goforth ct al,
rom Bexar; Seth p. Mills VS.. Missouri,
Kansas and Texas Railway Company OF
Texas, from McLennan.
Set for December s.; George NJ. White
vs.. City OF San Antonio; City of San An
onio VS.. Hildebrand & Hamilton, from ]
3exar. Z