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: 481
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1875.] MILLER AND BURNETT V. HAYS. 481
Argument for the appellant.
the Reconstruction Laws,-because it sought to deprive a class
of the people of Texas of rights which it sought to confer on
the white population.
Second. That the appellee made his application under said
Act on the 29th of June, 1867, that his application was refused
by the county surveyor on the same day, that the appellee acquiesced
in this decision for over three years; that in the meantime
the general commanding this military district on the 6th
February, 1869, prohibited any action being taken by any
person whatever under said Act (2 Paschal's Digest, Note
1367, p. 1446), and that at that time such orders were the
law of the land, and binding. (Grant v. Chambers, 34 Texas,
Consequently the appellee was prohibited from setting up
any rights, and the surveyor from making any surveys under
said Act of 12th of November, 1866, whatever effect may be
given to it when this action was brought, and it should have
Third. That the Act of the 12th of November, 1866, was repealed
by the Act of 12th August, 1870 (2 Paschal's Digest,
Articles 7045-7049), passed before the institution of this suit,
and that the appellee having failed to prosecute whatever rights
the Act of 1866 conferred on him, if any, within the time required
by that act, and having acquiesced in the action of the
surveyor, without in any manner seeking to reverse the same,
not only for a longer period than the time allowed him to make
his survey under that Act (twelve months from settlement), but
until long after that Act had been repealed by the Act of 1870;
his rights, if he ever had any, were forfeited when he brought
this action, and his petition should have been dismissed.
Fourth. That the appellee cannot claim the protection of the
Act of August 12, 1870 (2 Pasehal's Digest, Article 7052, 7053),
because he did not comply with its provisions. He did not proceed
under the application for recovery provided for in that
Act, but upon his old application, and upon this ground, also,
his petition should have been dismissed.
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/m1/489/: accessed April 22, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .