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: 398
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
898 WOOD V. WELDER. LTerm of
Argument for the appellant.
records, if it was not properly authenticated for registration
and recorded in the manner pointed out by the statute (36
Texas, 268; 26 Texas, 193). It certainly cannot be considered
a deed duly registered, as required by law, and should have
been excluded from the jury.
To avail of limitation under Article 4623, Paschal's Digest,
"Like peaceable possession " is taken to mean an actual, visible,
continued, adverse, and exclusive possession. There must
be an actual occupation of the premises, cultivating and using
the same, and paying taxes under deed or deeds duly registered.
Now, unless appellee has shown by evidence the concurrence
of all these requisites of this article, then the instructions
given in sixth and eighth assignments were erroneous,
and those refused in seventh assignment were proper. In
Wofford v. McKenna, 23 Texas, 43, it is held " that the statute
"intends an instrument which is really and in fact a deed,
"possessing all the essential legal requisites to constitute it
" such in law, it must be an instrument by its own terms, or
" with such aid as the law requires, assuming and purporting
' to operate as a conveyance. Not that it shall proceed from
" a party having title, or must actually convey title to the land;
"but it must have all the constituent parts, tested by itself,
"of a good and perfect deed."
TThe grant in question was located within the border leagues
of the coast, so appears upon its face, and was so admitted
on the trial; it did not have the consent of the Federal Executive
of Mexico, and the answer did not allege that consent,
and no proof was offered. And in tlie case of Sniith v. Power,
14 Texas, 146, upon the same title, or a part thereof, the Supreme
Court say: '( The consent of the Federal Executive of
" Mexico was a condition precedent to the making of the grant
"in this case." " Wanting that consent, it was made without
the authority of law, and was consequently void." And
again, in Smith v. Power, 23 Texas, 34, the court say: "' We
"are of opinion that it cannot (this grant) constitute the basis
:" or a link in a chain of transfer of title from or under the
Here’s what’s next.
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 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/m1/406/: accessed October 19, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .