Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the Galveston session, 1867, with an appendix containing the cases of the Galveston session, 1861, etc. Volume 29. Page: 74
ix, 626 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:
635 PAGE V. ARNIM. [Galveston,
for sale, and the grant which was referred to in it as a
part thereof, show that it could not have belonged to the
estate of William Chase.
When Mrs. Chase (the mother of the appellants) died,
her half of the league descended immediately to her
heirs, and in the administration of the estate of William
Chase, who died some ten years thereafter, the probate
court acquired no jurisdiction over her half of the league,
and the petition for the sale shows that all the debts had
been paid. Withers v. Pattison, cited above.
HT G. . Webb and S. S. JIMuzger, for Newell, argued
several questions of practice. The court erred in sustaining
objections to defendant, Newell, reading in
evidence the certified copies of the deed from E. R. Rain!water
to said defendant, taken from the records of deeds
of Gonzales and Lavaca counties, as appears by bill of
exceptions filed.
The objection upon which this deed was ruled out was
that the same was witnessed by J. B. Hoskins and another,
and J. C. Hoskins appeared before the chief justice
and proved it up for record. This was a certified
copy from [65] a record, and not the original deed, and
the initial B. appearing in the same is a clerical error.
For proof of this, it is sufficient to refer the court to the
copy from Lavaca county. That is the same deed identically,
but we find the name of the witness in that is J.
C. Hoskins, and not J. B. Hoskins.
In the case of McKay et al. v. Speak, 8 Tex. 390, the
court says: "A middle name or initial is not known in
law, and will not be noticed, unless it be made to appear
that it has been the occasion of a different person than
the one designed being injured thereby." Early v.
Sterret, 18 Tex. 116; see also Fulton v. Bayne, 18 Tex.
60; McKissick v. Colquhoun, 18 Tex. 148.
In Gaines et al. v. Stiles, 14 Pet. 322, the point raised
is, whether David Currick Buchanan and David Buchanan
were the same. The court says: "The law knows but
one christian name, and the omission or insertion of the
74
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. Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the Galveston session, 1867, with an appendix containing the cases of the Galveston session, 1861, etc. Volume 29., book, 1882; St. Louis, Mo.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28544/m1/72/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .