Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 234
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
234 BLOW & MORRIS v. HEIRS OF DE LA GARZA. [Term of
Opinion of the Court.
ROBERTS, C. J.-The transcript of the record does not show
what has become of this suit so far as Holliday, the original
plaintiff, is concerned. The intervenors, Blow and Miorris,
who claim an undivided interest in the league of land in controversy,
and who failed in their suit, have alone brought the
case into this court, in this proceeding, by writ of error. The
defendants below, the heirs of M. de la Garza, claim under the
statutes of limitation, and also set up an outstanding title in
another person (Davis), and obtained a verdict and judgment
in their favor.
The objections of plaintiffs in error to the verdict and judgment,
have reference entirely to errors alleged to have been
committed in matters of law and fact relating to the defenses
of the defendants, and not to the alleged title of the plaintiffs
in error, the intervenors. There is no statement of facts as to
the intervenors, and there is, therefore, no proof in the record
that they had any title to the land that this court can take
notice of. The statement of facts that is contained in the
transcript, was not made up with reference to them or to the
proof that they may have made or failed to make, in support
of their title in the trial of the cause. It does not appear by the
charge of the court, or in any bill of exceptions, as to the exclusion
of evidence or otherwise, that they were prevented from
introducing and establishing the title which they claimed. In
the entire absence of any title shown by them, and it not
appearing that they were prevented, by any ruling of the
court, from establishing their title, as it was alleged, it is wholly
unnecessary to consider the alleged errors committed by the
court in favor of the defendants in their efforts to maintain
It is argued that their deed appears as part of the petition,
and is referred to in the original deed by the grantor, Santiago
Serna, to Sutherland, and also by the testimony of Bass, one of
the witnesses. In answer to this it may be said that the deed,
being a part of the petition of the intervenors which was denied
by the defendants, cannot be regarded in this or any 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 Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/242/: accessed May 30, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .