Anderson v. Waco State Bank
Decision Date | 19 April 1894 |
Citation | 28 S.W. 344 |
Parties | ANDERSON v. WACO STATE BANK. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Robert H. Rogers and J. B. Scarborough, for applicant.
Under the facts found, there cannot be any question as to the correctness of the conclusion on the jurisdictional matter on which applicant relies for writ of error; but it is deemed proper, in view of the fact that the court of civil appeals, following the decision in the case of Stock Co. v. McCarty, 85 Tex. 412, 21 S. W. 598, held that there was no law in force in 1887 authorizing the forfeiture of school lands bought from the state, otherwise than through the courts, to say that in the decision of that case the attention of this court was not called to the act approved April 1, 1887. The eleventh section of that act declares: "If upon the first day of August of any year the interest due on any obligation remains unpaid, the commissioner of the general land office shall endorse on such obligation, `land forfeited,' and shall cause an entry to that effect to be made on the account kept with the purchaser, and thereupon said land shall be forfeited to the state, without necessity of re-entry, or judicial ascertainment, and shall revert to the particular fund to which it originally belonged, and be resold under the provisions of this act or any future law." The same s...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kenedy Town & Improvement Co. v. First Nat. Bank
...Pearce v. Wallis, 124 S. W. 496; Turner v. Brooks, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 451, 21 S. W. 404; Christie v. Gunter, 26 Tex. 700; Anderson v. Bank, 86 Tex. 618, 28 S. W. 344. Bergstrom v. Burns, 24 S. W. 1098; Lyons v. Daugherty, 26 S. W. 146; Cleveland v. Campbell, 38 S. W. 219; Allen v. Edrington, ......
-
Leahy v. Ortiz
...of jurisdiction." The same doctrine has been announced by the appellate courts of Texas. Christie v. Gunter, 26 Tex. 700; Anderson v. Bank, 86 Tex. 618, 28 S. W. 344; Turner v. Brooks, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 451, 21 S. W. 404; Bergstrom v. Bruns (Tex. Civ. App.) 24 S. W. 1098; Lyons v. Daugherty ......
-
Fristoe v. Blum
...by the court at that time. Judge Stayton participated in the decision of Stock Co. v. McCarty, and made the statement in Anderson v. Bank, 86 Tex. 618, 28 S. W. 344, that the attention of the court was not called to the act of 1887 in the former case, within a little more than a year from t......
-
Waggoner v. Flack
...79 Tex. 486, 493, 15 S. W. 700, had also held the same principle it announced in the Berrendo Case. It is true that Anderson v. Waco State Bank, 86 Tex. 618, 28 S. W. 344, and Fristoe v. Blum, 92 Tex. 76, 85, 45 S. W. 998, throw some doubt upon the correctness of the former decisions of the......