Luter v. Mayfield
| Decision Date | 01 January 1862 |
| Parties | E. LUTER v. W. H. MAYFIELD AND OTHERS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
It is settled law in this state, that since the adoption of the state constitution, individuals locating lands which had previously been granted cannot assert a right thereto, on the ground of forfeiture by the grantee by reason of his non-compliance with the terms of the original grant. [[[[7 Tex. 384;9 Id. 263;21 Id. 722;22 Id. 155;28 Id. 134.]
Evidence, therefore, introduced for the purpose of proving such a forfeiture of the title under which the adverse party claims the land in controversy, was properly excluded from the jury.
ERROR from Karnes. Tried below before the Hon. M. P. Norton.
This suit was brought by the appellant against the appellee for the recovery of thirteen and a half labors of land in the county of Karnes.
The facts are not necessary to be stated further than they appear in the opinion.
Verdict and judgment below for the defendants.
S. A. White, for plaintiffs in error.
Hancock & West and Hewitt & Newton, for defendant in error.
We are of opinion that the court below did not err in sustaining the objection made by the defendants to the admissibility of the evidence offered by the plaintiff to show that Ramon Musquiz, the original grantee of the land, and the person under whom defendants claimed, left Texas in 1835 or 1836, and went to Monclova in the state of Coahuila, “which evidence,” in the language of the bill of exceptions, “was for the purpose of showing that the title of defendants was extinguished and defeated by the breach of the conditions of the grant.” The question presented is not an open one in this court. The cases of Hancock v. McKinney, 7 Tex.; Swift v. Herrera, 9 Id.; Smith v. Johnson, 21 Id., and other cases not yet reported, have settled the law, that since the adoption of the state constitution individuals cannot by location assert any right to lands previously granted, on the ground of forfeiture for non-compliance with the conditions of the original grant. The cases cited are conclusive of the present case. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. West Lumber Co.
...supra; Hancock v. McKinney, supra; White v. Holliday, 11 Tex. 606; Rivers v. Foote, 11 Tex. 662; Johnston v. Smith, 21 Tex. 722; Luter v. Mayfield, 26 Tex. 325; Howard v. Colquhoun, 28 Tex. 134; Airhart v. Massieu, 98 U. S. 491, 25 L. Ed. This principle is stated as follows by Judge Sayles ......
-
Logan v. Curry
...the state can do so by a direct proceeding to cancel the patent (Johnston v. Smith, 21 Tex. 722; Bowmer v. Hicks, 22 Tex. 162; Luter v. Mayfield, 26 Tex. 325; Smith v. Walton, 82 Tex. 547, 18 S. W. 217); and it is insisted by appellant, in effect, that we should give to the certificate of p......
-
Metzler v. Johnson
...state has issued a grant, it alone can ordinarily have a forfeiture declared for a failure to comply with the terms of the grant. Luter v. Mayfield, 26 Tex. 325; Bowmer v. Hicks, 22 Tex. 162; Johnston v. Smith, 21 Tex. 729; and numerous other cases. And in quite a recent case the subject of......