The Snyder signal. (Snyder, Tex.) 1887-????, 1912-04-12

as plaintiffs say that said lands are
worth $1,000 per acre. They fur
ther complain because they claim
that the land was sold without pub
lie notice Of such sale. That the Com
missioners' Court failed to execute
its trust as trustees for said land, &C
cording to law. Plaintiffs in said
sub division also attack the parlia-
mentary procedure of the court in
entertaining motions relative to the
sale, and say that a higher offer for
said land was before the court at
the time OF the sale thereof, towit:
$500 per acre.
s. That said sale In the manner
complained of was a gross breach of
trust.
8. That said sale resulted In ten
thousand dollars damage to the
school fund in that the considera-
tion received therefor was too small
10. Plaintiffs pray that the con-
tract of sale be cancelled and that
the purchasers be enjoined from
claiming any rights in said land, and
that the Commissioners Court be en-
Joined from making any order per-
tanning to said contract of sale.
The petition of which the foregoing
is the main substance, is signed by
M. E. Rosser of the Snyder bar and
Davidson and Davidson of the Dallas
bar as attorneys for the plaintiff.
The Commissioners Court as one
of the defendants and the purchas-
ers of the land as defendants. thru
their attorneys filed a general de-
murrer to the plaintiffs petition,
which in plain English means that
the defendants stated that If all
that the plaintiffs alleged were true
(which they denied still the plain
tiffs we're illegally and without au-
thority of law maintaining their suit
Scurry county filed also twelve
special exceptions, and the purchas-
ers filed twenty two speciar excep-
tions to plaintiffs petition, wherein
the defendant is alleged that said
petition was defective from legal
standpoint. All these demurrers and
exceptiosn we're upon legal points
their substance would not be OF in
terest to the general public and viii
not here be stated.
The defendants. Scurry County's
special answer states In substance
the following.
The Court denies that they acted
in fraud or collusion with the pur-
chasers in the sale Of said land, and
that all allegations OF fraud and col
lusion claimed by the plaintiff are
unfounded and false in fact That
they sold the land for its fair mar
ket value for the sole purpose OF
procuring therefrom an available
school fund to aid the maintain
ance of the public schools OF Sour
ry county and for the benefits that
the present school children OF Sour
ry County for the years 1911 and
1912 and each scholastic year there
after. would derive from such sale.
That at the time said land was
sold. scurry county had a scholas-
tic population of about 2512 oh
dren and about forty schools. inolud
ing the Independent districts of Ira
Dunn. Hermleigh and Snyder. That
except perhaps in one or more OF
said Independent districts, the state
apportionment and the scholastic
fund derived by taxation In the
school districts OF the County was
not sufficient to run and maintain
the schools OF the County for long
or term than about four months in
the scholastic year 1911-12. That
by reason OF the sale OF said land
and the annual interest derived
therefrom Cs5sOO.OO) said schools
could and wounld have been main
tained for the full term Of months
as contemplated and provided.
The Commissioners Court says
that recognizing the needs Of the
several schools OF their county, and
for the purpose OF promoting the ed
ucation and educational interests OF
the present scholastic children In
the county as well and the succeed
ing scholastic children in the coun-
~ and in the discharge Of their OH
ciai duty n this respect In maintain
ing the several schools throughout
the county for the length Of time
prescribed By law. sold said lands
~.....ImI..a4