Lott v. King

Decision Date20 January 1891
Citation15 S.W. 231
PartiesLOTT <I>et al.</I> v. KING.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

E. H. Lott and D. W. Doom, for appellants. Wells, Stayton & Kleberg and Hume & Kleberg, for appellee.

GAINES, J.

This was an action of trespass to try title, brought to recover a league and labor of land patented to John B. Bulrese upon duplicate certificate No. 35,216, issued by the commissioner of the general land-office in lieu of original certificate No. 39, issued by the board of land commissioners of Jefferson county upon Bulrese's headright. Richard King was the original defendant, but he died during the progress of the suit, and appellee became the party defendant in his stead. As we understand from their abstract of title and the evidence offered, the plaintiffs claimed under the heirs of one Nathan Halbert; that Bulrese sold his headright to Halbert, before the certificate was issued; and that the original certificate, No. 39, was in fact issued to Halbert for one league of land. The defendant claimed under Bulrese, through an alleged conveyance of the certificate by Mary C. Halbert as his sole heir.

The plaintiff took the deposition of Mary C. Halbert, and upon a written motion by defendant, certain of her answers were suppressed. There were three grounds of the motion, one of which was waived. The grounds insisted upon were as follows: "(1) Because the second, third, fourth, sixth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth direct interrogatories were each of them leading, irrelevant, and incompetent; (2) because the answers to the said direct interrogatories, and each of them, were incompetent, irrelevant, and impertinent, and were in substance what the said direct interrogatories suggested to the witness." The direct interrogatories and the answers thereto excepted to by defendant were as follows: "Interrogatory No. 2. This is a suit in trespass to try title, to recover one league and one labor of land situated in Nueces county, Texas, and patented to John B. Bulrese on the 7th day of August, 1882, by virtue of duplicate headright certificate No. 35,216, issued in lieu of original headright certificate No. 39. The original certificate was issued by the board of land commissioners of Jefferson county, in 1838. `Were you ever acquainted with (said) John B. Bulrese? and, if yea, when and where did you know him, and for how long did you know him? Is he dead or alive? If you say that he is dead, when and where did he die? Are you related to said John B. Bulrese in any way? If so, how? If you answer that said John B. Bulrese is dead, and that you are a daughter of said John B. Bulrese, now please state whether or not the said Bulrese left any other children surviving him, and, if any, how many? and give their names; and, if any of them are girls, were they ever married? and, if yes, give the names of their husbands, and are any of the said children of said Bulrese dead? If yea, how many of them are dead, and what were their names, and when and where did they die? If you say that some of the children of said Bulrese are dead, did they leave any children or other descendants surviving them? and, if so, which of them? and give their names.' Answer. I was acquainted with the said John B. Bulrese. I knew him in the states of Louisiana and Texas, and knew him as far back as I can recollect. The said John B. Bulrese is dead. He died somewhere on Grand river, in the state of Louisiana. I am related to said John B. Bulrese. He was my father. Yes, the said John B. Bulrese left five children surviving him at his death besides myself, as follows, viz., John Bartya Bulrese, John C. Bulrese, Madaline Clara Bulrese, Mary Clarissa Bulrese, John Alfred, and myself, Mary Clementine Bulrese. Yes, the girls were all married. Madaline Clara Bulrese married a Mr. Jos. Christina, Mary Clarissa Bulrese, married Batease (or Batist) Jedra, and I married Nathan Halbert. All of the children of said John B. Bulrese, except myself, are now dead. Their names are as stated above. I don't know at what point or place they died, but some were in the state of Louisiana. My brother John C. Bulrese, and my oldest sister, Madaline Clara Christina, left some four or five children surviving them, I think; but I don't know whether my other brother and sister left any children surviving them or not. I don't know the names of the surviving children. Int. 3. Where do the children or the descendants of said John B. Bulrese now reside, if you know? and, if you don't know, please state where they lived the last you knew of them, and give the date of their said residence. A. I don't know where the children or the descendants of the said John B. Bulrese now reside. Some of them did reside at Franklin, in St. Mary's parish, in the state of Louisiana; and some at Plaquemine, Louisiana, the last time I knew where they lived. I don't recollect the date of their said residence, but it was something like thirty years ago. Int. 4. The original land certificate No. 39, issued by the board of land commissioners of Jefferson county to John B. Bulrese, for one league of land, recites that he had received the certificate for the labor, and that he had sold the league to Nathan Halbert. On February 22, 1837, the said John B. Bulrese executed to Nathan Halbert a bond for title, by which he bound himself to make title to Nathan Halbert to all of his headright, whether it be for a league and labor or for a third of a league, being the land for which he was entitled as a citizen of Texas before the day of the declaration of independence. Now, were you ever acquainted with said Nathan Halbert? If yea. were you related to him in any way? and if yea, how? Is said Nathan Halbert dead or alive? If you say he is dead, when and where did he die? A. I was acquainted with the said Nathan Halbert, and I was related to him. I was his wife. The said Nathan Halbert is dead. He died near Eagle Springs, in Coryell county, Texas, about the year 1867." "Int. 6. If you have answered that you are a daughter of John B. Bulrese, and the surviving wife of said Nathan Halbert, you will please state where you were living in February, 1837, and where was the said John B. Bulrese living, and were you or were you not at that time the wife of Nathan Halbert? If you answer that you were living on Adams' bayou, in Jefferson county, Texas, and that John B Bulrese was living with you at the time, you will please state what you done with the place you were living on. Whom did you leave in possession of the place when you left there? If you say that your husband, Nathan Halbert, sold the place to your father, the said John B. Bulrese, you will please state whether or not you were present when the trade was made. If you say you were present, what, if anything, did your father, the said Bulrese, give your husband for the place? Please state fully all that you may know of the transaction. A. In February, 1837, I was living on Adams' bayou, in Jefferson county, Texas. The said John B. Bulrese was living at my house with me. I was at the time the wife of Nathan Halbert. Nathan Halbert sold it to my father, John B. Bulrese. We left said John B. Bulrese and a Mr. Carothers in possession of the place. I was present when the trade between Nathan Halbert and John B. Bulrese was made, in which Nathan Halbert sold to said John B. Bulrese the place where we were then living upon. My father, said John B. Bulrese, gave my husband, said Nathan Halbert, his headright land certificate for the place we were then living upon, referred to in above trade. I know nothing further about the transaction than that my husband sold to my father the place we were living upon for the headright land certificate of my father, and that we moved off the place, and gave it up to my father, the said Bulrese." "Int. 10. If you state that you were acquainted with Barnes Parker, now please state whether or not you ever sold and conveyed the headright certificate of John B. Bulrese for one league and one labor of land to said Barnes Parker. A. I never did. Int. 11. If, in answer to interrogatory 10, you say you never sold or conveyed the John B. Bulrese certificate for one league and one labor of land, now state whether or not you ever signed a deed or transfer of said certificate to said Barnes Parker. A. I did not. Int. 12. Please state whether or not you ever authorized any person to sign your name to a deed or transfer of said certificate to said Barnes Parker. A. I never did authorize any one to sign my name to a deed or transfer to the said certificate of said John B. Bulrese to Barnes Parker. Int. 13. Please state whether or not you ever had any business transaction with said Barnes Parker, in which he paid you the sum of five hundred dollars. A. I never did have any business transaction with said Barnes Parker in which he paid me five hundred dollars, or any other sum of money. Int. 14. If, in answer to the preceding interrogatories, you have stated that you never sold or transferred the J. B. Bulrese headright certificate to Barnes Parker, state if you ever had any transaction with said Parker in which he paid you money. If so, when, where, and what was it, and how much did he pay you, and what kind of money did he pay you, A. I have answered this interrogatory in preceding interrogatory No. 13, to which I refer you for my answer to this." The motion to suppress these answers was sustained and the plaintiffs excepted. The ruling of the court upon the motion is assigned as error.

In Neyland v. Bendy, 69 Tex. 713, 7 S. W. Rep. 497, in determining the correctness of a ruling upon a similar motion, this language is used: "A number of questions were propounded to this witness, the most of which were not leading, though some were. The objection was to the interrogatories as a whole. We are of the opinion that the motion should have pointed out the particular interrogatories considered leading. This...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Ft. Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Jones
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 28, 1905
    ...however, may possibly be affected by the modification of the common-law rule recognized by our Supreme Court in the case of Lott v. King, 79 Tex. 292, 15 S. W. 231, and noticed in the case of Railway Company v. Dalwigh, 92 Tex. 655, 51 S. W. 500. But if so, we see no answer to the further f......
  • Magee v. Paul
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 1913
    ...that office, is admissible, and is subject only to such objections as could be made to the original were it produced." In Lott et al. v. King, 79 Tex. 292, 15 S. W. 231, our Supreme Court held that the affidavit of Barnes Parker, filed for the purpose of procuring the issuance of a duplicat......
  • Burleson v. Morse
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 27, 1943
    ...hence they were properly presented at the trial, under these authorities: Mayton v. Sonnerfield, Tex. Civ.App., 48 S.W. 608; Lott v. King, 79 Tex. 292, 15 S.W. 231; City of Magnolia Park v. Crooker, Tex.Civ.App., 252 S.W. 341; Woosley v. McMahan, 46 Tex. 62; Purnell v. B. F. Gandy & Son, 46......
  • Dave Lehr, Inc. v. Brown
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 9, 1933
    ...it must also suggest the desired answer. International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Dalwigh, 92 Tex. 655, 657, 51 S. W. 500; Lott v. King, 79 Tex. 292, 299, 15 S. W. 231; Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Cody, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 520, 50 S. W. 135, 137, par. 8, writ refused 92 Tex. 632, 51 S. W. 329. T......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT