State v. Burnett
| Decision Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Citation | 9 Tex. 48 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. BURNETT, EMPRESARIO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
It was not incumbent on an empresario, suing the State under the authority of the statute, to allege that he was a citizen; the grant of authority to empresarios to sue was general; the exclusion of aliens was special; and if the disability existed it was a matter of defense.
The fact of the present residence of the plaintiffs in the State of New York (November, 1846) does not raise the presumption that they were aliens to the Republic at the passage of the statute authorizing empresarios to sue.
Appeal from Travis. This was an action for the establishment of the claims of an empresario. The petitioner, David G. Burnett, representing himself as a citizen of the county of Harris, in the State of Texas, and as suing for the use of Stephen Whitney, John Haggerty, and George Griswold, resident citizens of the city and State of New York, alleged that he entered on the 22d day of December, 1826, into a contract with the proper authorities of the State of Coahuila and Texas to settle and colonize three hundred families upon a certain tract of land (the boundaries of which are described) within the limits of Texas.
He represented further that by the contract the families were to be settled within the limits of the said colony in the space of six years, and that this term was, by a subsequent act of the Congress of Coahuila and Texas, prolonged to the space of nine years; that within the time so extended he and those who acted with him and by his authority did carry out and fulfill the said contract in all its parts by settling the three hundred families stipulated in said contract, whereby he became entitled to receive fifteen leagues and fifteen labors as premium lands, which premium lands neither he nor any other person acting for or representing him in carrying out said contract had ever received or any part thereof.
The petitioner also represented that after the making of the said contract, finding himself unable from his own resources to carry out the said enterprise of colonization, he engaged the assistance of certain persons who undertook to carry out and perform all the obligations and stipulations of said contract, and for which he agreed that they should receive all the benefits resulting from the performance of the same, and that said persons did fulfil all of his duties as said contractor, and that the said Stephen Whitney, John Haggerty, and George Griswold, for whose use he sues, are the lawfully authorized representatives of said persons, and as such are entitled to the benefits of any decree to be rendered in the premises. He prayed that Albert C. Horton, Acting Governor of the State, might be made a party to the suit, and in substance that he might have judgment in conformity with the prayer of the petition, &c. The petition was filed on the 10th of November, 1846.
The answer consisted of a general demurrer and a general denial filed at the Spring Term, 1847; and at the Fall Term, 1848, there was filed a special demurrer, assigning for causes:
1st. That the petition does not allege or show that John Haggerty, Stephen Whitney, and George Griswold, for whose use and benefit the said suit was instituted, are or were citizens of the State or Republic of Texas.
2d. On the contrary it shows that the petitioners were aliens to the said Republic of Texas, all of which he is ready to verify.
The plaintiff offered in evidence the original contract (as filed in the General Land Office) between himself and the government of the State of Coahuila and Texas; also the decree extending the time of the said contract, the original commission of George Antonio Nixon, commissioner for the said colony, the said commission being also on file in the General Land Office. The plaintiff also introduced the abstract of titles issued by Nixon as filed in the General Land Office, showing that there had been settled in the said colony under said contract two hundred and twelve families and forty-four single men; and also the original deeds from said land office executed by the said commissioner to the colonists. The plaintiff also proved that neither he nor any other person for him or in his name had received any premium lands for introducing, colonizing, and settling said families and single men in said colony.
To the introduction of all of which testimony the plaintiff objected; and the objection being overruled, exception was taken. It was agreed by the parties that certified copies from the land office of the said contract, commission, and abstract of titles should be sent up in the transcript to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pullman Co. v. Ransaw
...time of such injury more than five employees, the trial court did not err in refusing to give said requested charge to the jury. State v. Burnett, 9 Tex. 48, 51; T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Murphy, 46 Tex. 356, 363, 26 Am. Rep. 272; Dunaway v. Austin Street Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 195 S. W. 1157, 1......
-
Rose v. Same
...on the 16th day of December, 1857.J. A. & R. Green, for the appellants. The facts of this case are the same as in the case of The State v. Burnett, 9 Tex. 48,with the exception, that in this case it is admitted that Dey, Sumner, Curtis, Haggerty, Griswold, and Whitney, were aliens to the re......