Hardman v. Crawford
| Decision Date | 06 November 1901 |
| Citation | 64 S.W. 938 |
| Parties | HARDMAN v. CRAWFORD. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
In affirming the judgment of the court below, this court overruled appellant's contention that school land that had been properly awarded to an actual settler by the commissioner of the general land office, and subsequently abandoned by such settler, is not open to purchase by another settler, until a forfeiture has been declared by the commissioner of the general land office or by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. In the motion for rehearing, appellant's counsel for the first time calls our attention to the case of O'Keefe v. McPherson, 61 S. W. 534, decided by the court of civil appeals at Ft. Worth. Our decision was, to a large extent, based upon former rulings made by the court referred to; but in the case cited Mr. Justice Stephens points out some differences between the present statute and the one construed by that court in its former decisions, and the ruling made in O'Keefe v. McPherson is directly the reverse of the ruling made by us in this case. In the case cited, the supreme court refused to grant a writ of error, and seemingly approved the ruling referred to in that case. But, if the law on that subject be as held in the O'Keefe Case, a further examination of the record in this case discloses the fact that appellant is not in a position to claim the benefit of it.
The only manner in which the question is presented in this court is by an objection to the trial judge's charge; but the record shows that the appellant requested an instruction which, on the question referred to, was substantially the same as the charge now assigned as error. Having requested the court to charge as it did, appellant is precluded from complaining of the charge. The fact that the special charge was refused does not change the rule. Railway Co. v. Sein, 89 Tex. 64, 33 S. W. 215, 558.
After due consideration of this motion, our conclusion is that it should be overruled; and it is so ordered. Motion overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cornwell v. State
...18 Tex. Civ. App. 326 ; International & G. N. Ry. v. Culpepper, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 188 ; Davis v. Davis, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 312 ; Hardman v. Crawford, 64 S. W. 938. These authorities would seem to settle two propositions: First. Where the charge, although erroneous, had been given at the inst......
- Hardman v. Crawford