Williams v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 11 February 1890
• Citation: 13 S.W. 69
• Parties: WILLIAMS <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> WILSON <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

13 S.W. 69

WILLIAMS et al.v.

WILSON et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 11, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Austin county.

M. M. Kenney, for appellants.Chesley & Haggerty, for appellees.

GAINES, J.

The plaintiffs sued as heirs of Matthew R. Williams, deceased, to recover a tract of 640 acres of land, located and patented by virtue of a certificate issued to him, in accordance with the act of congress of the republic of Texas of December 21, 1837.That act granted 640 acres of land to all soldiers of the republic who participated in the battle of San Jacinto; and provided that the lands granted by virtue thereof should "not be subject to sale or alienation, mortgage or execution, during the life-time of the person to whom" the warrant or patent should be granted.Pasch.Dig. art. 4062.Both the certificate by virtue of which the land was granted and the patent itself contained the limitations upon the powers of the grantee which are expressed in the act.The certificate issued to Matthew R. Williams on the 31st day of January, 1839.On the 14th of March, 1840, the grantee, for the consideration of $640, executed to one David Ayres an instrument, which purported to authorize Ayres to locate the certificate, and to receive the patent, and to hold the land to be granted by virtue thereof for the term of 99 years, without the payment of any additional rent.A patent to the land in controversy issued to the original grantee of the certificate on the 7th day of October, 1845.April 7, 1846, Ayers executed to Peter McGreal his special warranty deed, conveying to the grantee all his right, title, and interest in the land in controversy.McGreal in like manner conveyed to one Miller, who in his turn conveyed to one Hagadon, who next conveyed to one Furst.Furst died having devised all his property to Frederick E. Van Roy, who conveyed the land in controversy to the defendants in this suit.The plaintiffs proved that Matthew R. Williams died in 1852, and that they were his heirs.The defendants proved the other facts stated above, and the court gave them judgment.

There are no conclusions of fact and law in the record, and we are left to conjecture as to the grounds upon which the court based its judgment.If, however, the court held, in accordance with the appellees' contention, that the lease from Williams to Ayres was not in contravention of law, and was a valid conveyance, we do not concur in its opinion.In Ames v. Hubby, 49 Tex. 705, a similar conveyance of a San Jacinto donation certificate was held void.In that case the contract provided that, at the end of the term, the lessee, his heirs or assigns should have the right to hold possession of the land as long as he or they saw fit, upon payment of rent of one cent per annum.That was a very obvious evasion of the law, which prohibited an alienation of the certificate, and to our minds the intent to evade the law is equally clear in the present case.It is true that, according to the literal terms of the lease, the property was to revert to heirs of the lessee at the end of 99 years.But we do not hesitate to say that a lease of property in Texas during the days of the republic, which was to continue for the average period...