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: 468
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:
'468 MARTIN V. BROWN. [Tyler Term,
Opinion of the court.
plications were recorded in the surveyor's office of McMullen county
on the same day, and were duly forwarded to the state treasurer
within the time required by law, together with one-twentieth of the
appraised value of the sections. Brightly, through his agent William
Cassin, presented certificates from the commissioner of the general
land office, to the surveyor of McMullen county, within ninety
days from the filing and recording of said applications, showing
that the applications and the treasurer's receipt for one-twentieth of
their appraised value had been received and filed in the general land
office, whereupon the surveyor entered the sections in his book as
sold; and Brightly executed his notes, as required by law, for the
balance due on the land, which notes were duly forwarded to the
general land office. Appellants claim as purchasers in good faith,
for a valuable consideration, under and through the title of John
Brightly.
The commissioner of the general land office, without being informed
of appellants' claim of right to the land, upon appellee's
applications, in their altered and changed condition, being filed in
the general land office, issued him patents for both of these sections;
and this suit was brought by appellants to divest appellee of whatever
title he may have acquired by the patents, and to vest the title
to the same in appellants by the proper decree of the district court
of McMullen county.
On the 27th of March, 1882, the appellee filed a general and six
special exceptions to appellants' petition, all of which the court sustained,
except special exception No. 6, which set up the exclusive
authority of the land board to pass on any irregularities there might
be in the sale of school sections, and upon appellants' declining to
amend their petition the suit was dismissed, to which ruling the appellants
excepted, gave notice of appeal in open court, filed their
appeal bond, assigned errors, and brought the case to this court by
appeal.
Archer & Brown, for appellants, on impeachment of patent, cited:
Gullett v. O'Connor, 54 Tex., 416; Burleson v. Durham, 45 Tex.,
'157; Wyllie v. Wynne, 26 Tex., 45; Sherwood v. Fleming, 25 Tex.
Sup., 428; McKinney v. Grassmeyer, 51 Tex., 382; Gen. Laws of
1881, sec. 7, p. 121.
J. M. Eckford, for appellee.
WATTS, J. CoM. APP.- In passing upon the petition as tested by
the general demurrer, the court should consider everything as prop
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/m1/490/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .