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: 19
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1884.] IH. & T. C. R'Y Co. v. TRAVIS COUNTY. 19
Opinion of the court.
the decision in City of Galveston v. Menard, supra, he remarked:
"We are not disposed to extend the doctrine of that case."
In the opinion delivered in Coleman v. Thurmond, it is said:
"Under our statute of limitations as to lands, the right of the state
is not barred. R. S., art. 3200; Pasch. Dig., art. 4623. As the
state would not be barred in such cases, neither would the county,
under our general statute on this subject, it being but a subdivision
of the state, and having but a general control and authority over
the streets, in trust only for the use and benefit of the state at
The view advanced by the learned justice meant, we think, to
indicate in the case before the court, that the doctrine held in cases
of Lee v. Norris, Kennedy v. Townley, Iartley v. Iartley, and
State Bank of Illinois v. Brown, was applicable to the case of the
mere general control and authority of a county over streets of a
town,- that it was the state at large that held the actual, real
beneficial interest in streets as public highways, and that the county,
as a political subdivision, had but a trusteeship in them for the use
and benefit of the state at large. In City of Galveston v. Menard,
the court applied the statute of limitations absolutely and without
reservation, notwithstanding a dedication of the property for the
use of the public; and in Coleman v. Thurmond the court pertinently
said, as above quoted, that it was not disposed to extend the
doctrine beyond the limits indicated in that case.
The policy of the state in regard to exempting the sovereignty
from the operation of statutes of limitations has been construed by
the supreme court to have been limited in those statutes to lands,
and that personal actions in favor of the state were subject to be
barred by lapse of time. See State v. Purcell, 16 Tex., 308; The
Governor v. Allbright, 21 Tex., 753; The Governor v. Burnett, 27
Tex., 37. The statutes of limitations contained affirmative expressions,
expressly declaring that the state was not subject to the three
years, five years, nor the ten years' statute of limitation (arts. 4622,
4623, 4624, Pasch. Dig.); but the statutes of limitations were silent
in respect to the application of the statute in respect to any other
class of rights in which the state might be concerned.
The Revised Statutes, chapter 1, entitled Limitation of Actions for
Land, and embracing the subject of land only, provides (art. 3200)
that "The right of the state of Texas shall not be barred by any
of the provisions of this chapter." The Revised Statutes makes no
further similar reservation in favor of the state in respect to other
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/41/: accessed June 29, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .