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: 75

[1884.] HANBICK V. DODD. 75
Syllabus.
E. G. HANRICe V. W. A. DODD.
(Case No. 5075.)
1. ALTERATIONS - CIVIL LAW.- The civil law was extremely strict in guarding
against fraudulent alterations of public documents, and the officers who
acted under it will be presumed to have been familiar with its requirements.

2. SAME.--The civil law required that a public document be clearly written,
without blanks, erasures, obliterations or corrections, especially in the
substantial parts; or where corrections were made, that they should be authenticated
at the foot by the officer. Not only should the words substituted
and validated be shown, but also the words abandoned and made
void (following Ianurick v. Cavanaugh). This rule applies as well to the
testimonio as to the protocol of a title.
8. SAME--MEXICAN GRANT.- Reference may be had to the testimonio of a
title, if it be in existence, to test by its appearance whether a change apparent
on the face of the protocol was made before or after the title issued.
4. FACT CASE- VERDICT.- See statement of case and opinion for facts which
were held to fairly support the verdict of a jury finding forgery in the
protocol of what appeared to be a grant of eleven leagues of land, dated
in 1833.
5. DIVESTING TITLE.--Under the Mexican law, as under the common law, an
estate granted by the government cannot be afterwards divested upon
mere surmise or suggestion. A formal conveyance or a regular proceeding
was requisite to divest title.
6. ABANDONMENT-- GRANT. - When two grants, each for eleven leagues, were
shown in the name of the same grantee, the failure to show that a testimlonio
issued of the first grant raises no presumption that it was abandoned
before the second grant issued.
7. FORGERY - EVIDENCE.- On an issue of forgery of what purported to be the
protocol of a grant, it was not error to admit in evidence certified copies
of sketches, maps and surveys nearly contemporaneous, made by those
who participated in procuring the grant, and having reference to it, to be
considered with other facts in evidence relating to the issue of forgery of
the grant. Following Hanrick v. Cavanaugh, 60 Tex., 1.
8. ABANDONMENT - EVIDENCE.- A correspondence by letter between a commissioner
of the general land office and a county surveyor is not admissible to,
affect the question of title to land in a controversy between other parties;
nor can a letter from the commissioner of the general land office be
admitted to show an abandonment of title by one in whom it has once
vested.
9. ABANDONMENT.- A title which has once vested cannot be divested by a
mere declaration of abandonment. Following H. & T. C. R. R. Co. v.
McGehee, 49 Tex., 489, and Hanrick v. Cavanaugh, 60 Tex., 1.
10. EVIDENCE - JUDGMENT.- When, in trespass to try title, it is not shown that a
judgment offered in evidence was rendered in a suit involving the title, or
that the defendant against whom it is offered was a party to the former
suit or in privity with some one who was, it should be excluded.
11. CONSTITUTION -CONSTRUED.-Sec. 2 of art. 14 of the state constitution, prohibiting
locations on lands " titled, or equitably held," has no application to
land claimed to be covered by a forged grant, and does not prevent a preemptor
from establishing his pre-emption on the same.