The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-11-09
TITLE TO GUSHERS INVOLVED.

sttfNs nA...lit e''AN-Af
George G. o'Brien, John A. Moon,
w. g stanton.
S. D. cordova and Addle cordova, huS
band and wife,
A. j. Eners, L. Davis
NJ Marx, Frank Glover,
II I stattl, NJ. d. Maddox
| W. ii Turner George w Jaionlck,
trustee. NJ b. Darlington,
! D. c. Earnest G. II. Earnest
! all Of Dallas county, Texas
! a. l.. Matlock, Tarrant county.
John Loyeioy Harris county.
r. W. Lane. Tayette county
Eliza Iillehrandt and Alice Hillebranut
! BeSar county
I r. Harrington. McIcnnan county.
w T. Brico Of Iowa
Lillian Z. Turner 81 Illinois
! Alfred lllilebrandt and Eurazie Hlile-
/ brandt OF Colorado.
J.. s. Lrvell Of Louisiana.
! Henry w. Wilson OF PENNSYLVANIA.
| charles T.. Hansen Of California.
James Quirk Of Minnesota.
and wife of California.
/ Fannie NcRich NJ California
The main object If The suit hied Is 10
/ complainant In this suit entered June q
! 1885, by tho State district court at Beau
Z mont, for he reason. as alleged, that II
was obtained by meaos Of forged deed.
The plaintiff resides in Covington, Ken
ton county Ky.
In his complaint the plaintiff makes
charges which II proved, Will establish
the fact that the parties who are now IN
possession Of the Iauds covered by q portion
~ the Vcarch survey, including spindle
Top Heights have no title TO the property
After avetring that yohu A. veatch ac-
quired the property la question by grant
from tho government Of Conhuia and
Texas. on February &. 1888. and thgt John
A. yoatch Oh March t5 lS4t, sold and con
veyed the property in question TO Colonel
james Morgan, late secretary Of tho navy
under the FIRST president Of the Republic
Of Texas the charge Is made that the
7 deed reconvcyi1g the property from Coionc.
James Morgan to John A. Ncatrh. dated
November 10. 1871, but not recorded until
january 8, 1861, a few months after the
death Of Colonel Morgan Is a forgery.
This deed has been treated as genuine,
aad upon its genuincncss is based the title
ot many Of the oil companies and others
now in possession Of the property sued for.
From the complaint &c is also gathered
that even II the deed from Colonel Morgan
to John A. yeatch recouyeyiug the property
20 Veatch should be adiudred genuine, the
present occupants and claimants TO the
property are In DANCE ot losing we sah nts
by reason OF the iact thht I'd" H9eu WIN WIN
'rlonel James Morgan WaHe Iol we P',p
erty to william X Baker on O'iopet ~
lsoj. was recorded ou December -. l9qp
just one year aud seven Gays nei9Ie, th'
decd alleged to be In force from Ozone
Morgan back 70 Dr. Neatch was recorded
| and Baker having been an innocent Pul
| chaser and having MS deed recorded heIor'
he had any inlimaIcn or knowledge tn4a
the other deed was lu existence, mis- tti
To the land would hold good. ~
}. Some Of the many circumstances clalme'
by the plaintiff as pointing 10 the ihy
= that the deed pnrporung TO ne from 'oo
mel Morgan to Or. Neatcn aud reconvey
q ing the property TO said Neatch, Is loi
gerry, are:
a l. 1t is pointed out In the complain
that Colonel Morgan c9ntnueG paying g.
e. taxes on the property from 1871, when n
was supposed to have reconNeyed the prol
D. erty to Or. Neatch, until 1850, when 10 !
a alleged. that Colonel Morgen eToneouS'
10 supposed that he mad lost hts title 10 ih
- property through a tax snl'. The y"u
ID plqiuant alleges that he has i'm his persona
a possession the original tax receipts for Cd
ID taxes on the property In question for thos
a S~ars, which had been given 10 Colonr
~ Morgan for taxes paid by him on IN
property.
ia A Drif