Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 84
xxii, 836 p., 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
84 HANEICK v. DODD. [Austin Term,
Opinion of the court.
On the proposition that title to the first grant of eleven leagues
on the Brazos, of date October 4, 1833, could not be lost by abandonment,
the fee having vested, he cited: Williams v. Conger, 49
Tex., 582; Ferris v. Carver, 10 Cal., 589; Bunting .v. Young, 5
Watts & Serg., 188; 9 Dana, 452; Robie v. Sedgwick, 35 Bart. (N.
Y.), 319; Proprietors of Lock v. N. & R. R. Co., 104 Mass., 1.
That abandonment, even of an inchoate title, would be a fact for
the jury to ascertain, not of law for the court, he cited: Hollingsworth
v. Iolshousen, 17 Tex., 41; Russell v. Davis, 38 Cow., 562;
Philadelphia v. Riddle, 25 Pa. St. (Casey), 259; 15 N. H., 412;
Keene v. Cannovan, 21 Cal., 303; Davis v. Pearly, 30 Cal., 630.
GoocH, SPECIAL JUDGE.- This action, which is in the usual form
of trespass to try title, was brought in the district court of Williamson
county, on the 12th day of November, A. D. 1877, by E. G.
Hanrick, appellant, against W. A. Dodd, appellee. Appellant
claimed title under an eleven-league grant, purporting to have been
extended by Luke Lesassier, alcalde of the municipality of San
Felipe de Austin, to Rafael de Aguirre, on the 22d day of October,
A. D. 1833. The appellee Dodd answered by a plea of not guilty,
and set up other defenses, which need not be stated. To the instrument
evidencing the original grant, the appellee interposed an affidavit
of forgery. The case was tried by a jury during the month
of February, A. D. 1884, and resulted in a verdict and judgment
for appellee. The court submitted no other issue to the jury than
that of the alleged forgery of the instrument attacked by the affidavit,
and by their verdict they found it to be a forgery.
The very able and exhaustive arguments, oral and written, of
counsel for both parties, have been addressed chiefly to this question.The first proposition made by the appellant, under his assignment
of error, is in substance that the verdict of the jury, on the issue
presented, is not supported by the evidence. If this proposition is
sustained, it will require a reversal of the judgment. If it is not,
and if it is supported by the evidence, it is conclusive against appellant's
right to recover, unless some error was committed by the
court, to his prejudice, during the trial. A determination of this
question requires an examination of the evidence. The title to
Rafael de Aguirre purports to have been extended by Luke Lesassier,
alcalde, by virtue of a concession in sale by the governor to
Thomas de La Vega, Jose Maria de Aguirre and Rafael de Aguirre,
for eleven leagues of land each, in a single instrument. A copy of
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/106/: accessed March 29, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .