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: 85
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:
1884.] HIANrICt v. DODD. 85
Opinion of the court.
it, and not the original, was made a part of the title under consideration.
This, however, has been held to constitute no valid.objection
to it. HIanrick v. Jackson, 55 Tex., 17; Hanrick v. Cavanaugh, 60
Tex., 1.
It has also been held, with reference to this particular title, that
the alcalde was clothed with authority to extend it to the interested
party, and that he must determine how and when he had done so;
and that, though he ought not to have extended more than one title
on the same concession, if he did do so, it would be only an erroneous
exercise of authority, and therefore not void. Hanrick v. Jackson,
55 Tex., 17. In the case now before us, the appellee contends,
not that the title was erroneously or fraudulently issued by the
alcalde, Lesassier, but that it was not issued at all, to Rafael de
Aguirre, or by virtue of the concession to him. It was shown by
the evidence of appellee, that, at the instance of the same attorney,
two final titles were extended to Rafael de Aguirre to separate and
distinct surveys, by virtue of one and the same concession, by the
same alcalde, who was in both assisted by the same witnesses. The
first title was for eleven leagues on the Brazos river, dated on the
4th day of October, A. D. 1833; and the second title for ten leagues
on the San Gabriel creek (now in Williamson county), and one
league on Cow Bayou (now in Falls county), dated on the 22d day
of October, A. D. 1833, or eighteen days later than the first. The
last title was all in the handwriting of Samuel M. Williams (except
the last four words of the emendation clause). He was one of the
company of Austin and Williams, empresarios. He acted for
Rafael de Aguirre, under an irrevocable power of attorney to himself
with authority to sell,-an instrument which is held by our
courts to be an indefeasible conveyance. He applied on the same
day-October 4, A. D. 1833,-in separate applications, for titles
of possession to each of the eleven-league grants, stating that one
survey was on the Brazos river, and the other on San Gabriel creek
and Cow Bayou. On that day, juridical possession was delivered to
him, as attorney, and final title extended, at his instance, to Rafael
de Aguirre, to the eleven leagues of land on the Brazos river. The
title involved in this suit appears to have been extended eighteen
days afterwards.
The appellee insists that the alcalde did not extend both titles to
Aguirre; but that the final title, which now appears to have been
extended to him, to the second eleven-league grant, which he was
not entitled to, was, in fact, extended to Perfecto Valdez. In further
support of his theory, he introduced the original application of Per
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/m1/107/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .