Matagorda County v. Casey
| Decision Date | 01 February 1908 |
| Citation | Matagorda County v. Casey, 108 S.W. 476, 49 Tex.Civ.App. 35 (Tex. App. 1908) |
| Parties | MATAGORDA COUNTY v. CASEY.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
J. W. Conger and John E. Linn, for plaintiff in error. R. E. Carswell, for defendant in error.
This is an action of trespass to try title instituted by plaintiff in error against defendant in error to recover block 99, Matagorda county school lands, situated in Wise county. There was judgment for the defendant.
The merits of the appeal may be determined for the most part by an examination of the orders of the commissioners' court of plaintiff in error county, complained of by plaintiff in error upon the one hand as being void, and urged by defendant in error on the other hand as being sufficient to support the sale made to his vendor thereunder, and therefore to authorize the judgment rendered in his favor. On May 15, 1888, the commissioners' court of Matagorda county passed the following order: ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
C. C. Slaughter Cattle Co. v. Potter County
...an option, we should interpret it to be a sale contract. Foard County v. Sandifer, 105 Tex. 420, 151 S. W. 523; Matagorda County v. Casey, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 35, 108 S. W. 476; Brazoria County v. Padgitt, 160 S. W. at page 1174. The Supreme Court the Tabor Case, while intimating that the con......
-
Loving County v. Higginbotham
...without power to delegate to another the powers or duties of the trust, seems to be supported by the decisions in Matagorda County v. Casey, 49 Tex.Civ.App. 35, 108 S.W. 476; Foard County v. Sandifer, 105 Tex. 420, 151 S. W. 523; Freestone County v. McKinney, Tex.Civ.App., 285 S.W. 340; McK......
-
Freestone County v. McKinney
...Civ. App. 175, 122 S. W. 291; Carter-Kelly Lumber Co. v. Angelina County, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 310, 126 S. W. 293; Matagorda County v. Casey, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 35, 108 S. W. 476; Leon County v. Vann, 86 Tex. 707, 27 S. W. 258), subject only to the lien retained by the county to secure the paym......
-
Brazoria County v. Padgitt
...the general fund. The fact that such compensation is called a "commission" does not prove a contrary intention. Matagorda County v. Casey, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 35, 108 S. W. 476. With the exception of the words "and retain," there is nothing in the order to indicate an intention to pay Wilson ......