Yoakum County v. Slaughter
Decision Date | 01 November 1913 |
Citation | 160 S.W. 1175 |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Parties | YOAKUM COUNTY v. SLAUGHTER.<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> |
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; R. H. Buck, Judge.
Action by Yoakum County against C. C. Slaughter. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Sayles, Sayles & Sayles, of Abilene, for appellant. Henry C. Coke, of Dallas, for appellee.
Yoakum county instituted this suit in the district court of Tarrant county against C. C. Slaughter, for the sole benefit of appellant's public schools, to recover title to, the possession of, and rents from, leagues Nos. 82, 83, and 84, and portions of leagues Nos. 81 and 85 ( ) situated in Hockley and Cochran counties, alleging such leagues to be a part of the 300 leagues of land surveyed for the unorganized counties of Texas, under the provisions of an act of the Seventeenth Legislature of Texas, approved March 26, 1881 (General Laws of Texas of 1881, c. 61, p. 65), praying for the removal of cloud from its title and for the cancellation of patents to said four leagues of land; such patents purporting to have been issued by virtue of the act of the Eighteenth Legislature of Texas, approved April 7, 1883 (General Laws of Texas of 1883, c. 55, p. 45), to Shackelford county, for public school purposes, under which county the appellee, Slaughter, holds. It is alleged that Yoakum county had been created but was unorganized at the time the act of the Seventeenth Legislature, approved March 26, 1881, took effect, and at which time Shackelford county was duly organized. Appellee Slaughter answered by general demurrer, general denial, and plea of not guilty. The trial was before the court without the mediation of a jury, and judgment was rendered that plaintiff, Yoakum county, take nothing and that defendant, Slaughter, go hence without day and recover his costs.
The appellee, Slaughter, claims title under the act of 1883. The sections of the act of 1881 necessary to a decision of the questions presented here are as follows:
Caption: "An act to provide for designating and setting apart three hundred leagues of land out of the unappropriated public domain for the benefit of the unorganized counties of the state, and to provide for the survey and location of the same:
So much of the act of 1883 as is necessary to be stated here is as follows:
Caption: "An act to reserve and set apart 325 leagues of land heretofore surveyed for the benefit of the unorganized counties of the state and such organized counties as may have located their four leagues of school land, or any part thereof in conflict with valid prior locations or surveys, or which may from any cause fail to get title to the four leagues of land they are entitled to under the law. Whereas, the commissioner and contractor, under an act entitled `An act to provide for designating and setting apart three hundred leagues of land out of the unappropriated public domain, for the benefit of the unorganized counties, and to provide for the survey and location of the same,' approved March 26, 1881, have surveyed 325 leagues; and whereas, some of the four leagues of land surveyed for some of the organized counties of this state, have been located in conflict with other older surveys; and whereas, other instances of this kind may arise; therefore:
Section 2 of this act is identical with section 7 of the act of 1881, supra, except this provision, "But said counties shall not be required to pay patent fees for said patents," thus relieving the unorganized counties of the burden of paying the patent fees provided in section 7 of the act of 1881.
Then follows section 3:
As bearing upon the issues hereinafter considered, a portion of article 7, § 6, of the Constitution of 1876, as amended August 14, 1883, and which has so existed from that date, is here quoted: "All lands heretofore or hereafter granted to the several counties of this state for educational purposes are of right the property of said counties respectively to which they were granted, and title thereto is vested in said counties, and no adverse possession or limitation shall ever be available against the title of any county." The amendment of August 14, 1883, made no material change in this clause of the article, as it existed in the Constitution of 1876. It is shown by the record that the locating surveyor or contractor under the act of 1881, who was directed to return field notes for 300 leagues of land, for some reason unexplained, returned the field notes for 25 additional leagues. Twenty-five of the 325 leagues so returned had been patented to counties which were organized before the act of 1881 took effect, prior to the issuance of patents to the organized county of Shackelford, for the four leagues in controversy. Appellant's theory of this case is that the counties created but unorganized prior to the act of 1881, or afterwards created, and necessarily then...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yoakum County v. Slaughter
...was a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, and to review the judgment of such court, reversing (160 S. W. 1175), defendant brings error. Reversed, and judgment of the District Court for defendant Henry C. Coke, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error. Sayles, ......