*1 Tes.) SETTLEMENT D. CO. v. VILLAGE MILLS CO. SOUTHWESTERN (245 S.W.) law de- statement of a correct &wkey;s342 3. Evidence or orders of survey —List purports by cases, to be. certified of orders termined those copy such held admis? sible as archives land office. of of the owners Our that the conduct try trespass In to wherein defendants complete reposing confidence of cotton by regular pat- claimed chain of title back to a negligence is did not constitute Cardwell Republic ent from the a list of or- of argument assailed, and, vehemently an after survey ders of made out as were issued analyzed consid- in which the facts are by a commissioner of and a cer- propounds ered, appellant’s more counsel copy survey tified sible of held admis- says perfervid questions, “Who or less office, as archives the land view of of negligence?” relating 1, 5, farmers] free from [the Rev. St. art. subds. to Republic question negligence documents and, fact?” Texas. of of “Isn’t a ques first of these answer [5] The <&wkey;83(3)— 4. Evidence Execution and indorse- evidence is that the uncontradicted tions compels ment of official document presumed. say, inhibits the court sought it is Where to introduce evidence jury gainsay, were free survey by a list of orders a of made land com- ques negligence. Republic second The answer to missioner in his of of Texas offi- capacity, question cial execution negligence of ais tion is by presumed. such commissioner bewill presents an issue when evidence rendering possible reasonable than one more 5. Evidence of execu- <&wkey;89 Presumption due — facts. conclusion of ancient instrument may be rebutted. case, such, that no reasonable While due execution of an ancient in- presumed, may except strument that neg be rebutted from it be derived deduction can by contrary. evidence of conclusively an absence establishes subject to question ligence, is one of <&wkey;3l8(3) 6. Evidence in offi- —Facts Shawver court. of control cial document not hearsay. exclusive held trespass try title, In Ry. where an official Ex. Co. Am. survey list of orders of a commission- made supra. Irvine, 802; Joske v. Republic introduced, er of the of Texas was rehearing is overruled. motion a hearsay, the facts recited list were not by the since were found commissioner in duly capacity his official record. of <&wkey;342 7. Evidence copy —Certified archive of land office held admissible. an Where official document constitutes & DE office, archive of is certified there- VILLAGE al. CO. et VELOPMENT admissible evidence. 853.)* (No. CO. et al. MILLS <&wkey;333(7) 8. Evidence .title commis- —Of Appeals Beaumont. Texas. (Court Civil sioner Republic Texas held archive of Rehearing Denied 1922. Nov. land office. 13, 1922.) If a list of orders of Republic commissioner of Texas was used as evidence the issuance of title ordinarily name o>f &wkey;>!8Identity 1. Names — commissioner, became an archive identity person. sufficient States, of the land office of the United ordinarily identity deemed of name While custody, had taken over its and as such was sufficient in evidence. admissible presumption strength determined particular ab- of each <&wkey;>372(IO) 9. Evidence of orders sur- —List suspicious is conclusive. circumstances sence held as ancient vey admissible instrument. list of orders held circumstances Republic <&wkey;!8 Suspioious 2. Names commissioner of the of Texas held — arising from identity to destroy as an ancient presumption admissible pass instrument tres- try question title on the of the originally name. try trespass title had to whom . In through plaintiffs issued.' claimed where “my league conveying L., E. one <&wkey;>!74 10. Public lands —Certificate entitled as a citizen of this I am land to which municipality,” commissioner held Republic con- claimed under defendants while clusive as recited therein. L., recited that he certificate E. try trespass In title a certificate of the single to one-third of man and entitled awas Republic board of land commissioners of the necessary plaintiffs league, it was a to show that struments patented of Texas on which the land was held persons named in two in- as to the facts recited conclusive therein. identical, man league, <&wkey;>6(l) 11. Trespass aof try pri- to one-third entitled —Rule family aof possession inapplicable, where man or the en- opposite married head league, destroy held and claim- than party more titled to the and presumption ants of name have none. proving identity try trespass burden the rule of to cast the n ' application, plaintiffs. has no where defend- Digests Key-Numbered in all KEY-NUMBER other oases see
<@=»]Tor granted January 31, ol error *writ *2 (Tex, REPORTER 245 SOUTHWESTERN 97C 75, regular land from tificates No. the hoard of commis- of hold under a chain ants 1, affirmatively Liberty February county, original grantee, of sioners dated and where Rogers plaintiff his head- transferred to Samuel title. has right claim land colonization laws to under the t&wkey;131 held liable 12. Covenants —Warrantors of and Texas than that he did Coahuila of instead deed, of interest from date is’ ‘It make transfers? Answer or ‘It eviction. from date of you not,’ is find the to be.” interest Covenantees should receive not,” Answer: “It is purchase-price their warran- from jhdgment appellees. was rendered for From fromof instead of tors the the date judgment appellants duly prosecut- of date eviction. appeal ed their to court. Rehearing. controversy patented to land in by patent dated heirs of Frederick Lewis damages <&wkey;>l30(4) of 13. Covenants —Measure following April, 1854, day the 12th of grantee general title, where of warranty never stated. certificate: posses- not been “No. 75. Office Board of Land Com- of of premises measure sion the demised of County missioners, Republic of Lib- of title damages to land the of a suit on erty. This Frederick Lewis emi- certifies that money, purchase interest is the year grated this 1830, and in the died payment. of date rate year country in the headright, and under Court, Coun- Appeal Hardin league from District of is entitled one-third laws Judge. Liberty, February 1, ty; Manry, 183S. Attest: L.' land. J. Geo, Cort, President, L. Miles. Dan T. B. Trespass try the Southwestern title Henry Johnston, Henry Tarley, C. B. Wise Company Development and Settlement Associate Commissioners.” Company Village Mills others Appellees regular under defendants, and Judgment others. and plaintiffs title from and under the heirs of Frederick part, and Affirmed Lewis. offered in evidence affirmed. reformed following deed: See, also, 230 S. W. “Department Municipality Nacogdoches, all Logue, all Kennerly, and G. Hill Lee & J. Liberty. presents Know men Head, Sherman, for Houston, H. O. Lewis, my myself, I, bind Frederick do appellants. assigns, Rogers, to make to Samuel heirs Parker, any person Baten, Gordon, think Ó. S. Thos. J. D.W. my appoint to municipality, direct, league Beaumont, ap- Todd, all of J. and Oliver I am entitled to as citizen of this pellees. my comply refusal hereby obligation I do with this court to authorize trespass WALKER, a suit J. This was compel me to do and I do further- try title, instituted to appellees, Rogers authorize the said on said enter the Frederick involved legitimate title, and to hold clear comity. my representatives. league in Hardin heirs witness one-third my hand whereof I have hereunto set presence A former court, subscribing first witness this trial reported 869. The in 230 day year of November of our "Lord jury, was to a eighteen thirty-five. being hundred and There issues, indicated: answered stamp paper got, we have written Lewis, who executed the Frederick “Was paper. X Frederick common Lewis. Rogers November of date to Samuel deed 1835, mark as Frederick same “Acknowledged day before me this 2d board 75 of the No. in certificate named land commissioners February Novr., Welch, 1835. Charles C. P. Const. Liberty county, of You dated Commissio.” will answer ‘Yes’ or 1838? you question, find ‘No’ to hold under a chain of title separate your on a sheet be, of name write from and under Samuel in the above deed. your foreman, signed paper, and there- your into court.” answer return proposition [1] On “No.” Answer: per name is sufficient Lewis, in "certificate named “Did son, appellants insist made out commissioners of board No. Liberty county, by introducing February evi their title trans- dated headright certificate, claim to fer to dence Coahuila colonization Lewis, chain of from Frederick ‘No,’ you find Answer ‘Xes’ or Texas? and the themselves from and under Sam transfers to uel be.” facts to Rogers. legal proposition advanced “No.” Answer: ordinarily “Identity of name sound. light circumstances the facts and “In per sufficient evidence deemed reasonably you, it more in evidence O’Connor, son. McNeil v. probable named in cer- ” Key-Numbered Digests ©sjFor see other cases KEY-NUMBER in all y. Tex.) & D. CO. VILLAGE MILLS CO. S.W.) (245 municipality.’ purport pre strength This deed did not 1058. But convey to in the and labor referred each sumption is determined Lewis; to Frederick did law, but particular a rule It is not purport league. A casts If the rule of evidence. married man league; But than a was- entitled to more *3 presump transfer, suspicion single league. a man a. to less than identity is of names tion proper description of the words of conclusive; is conveyed by raises hut if the evidence those that de- this deed are identity then scribe the land as that I am sue ‘to which entitled municipality.’ to as a citizen of advancing this With the person burden rests on the conveyance written, rights as Frederick prove appel identity, that is passed Lewis had-as a citizen of Texas to Sam- offer ease.' lants’ condition Rogers. true, right uel This is whether his con which establishes evidence a certificate league was to one-third of a more land. clusively named Frederick Lewis that right His date of this deed at the single found is so man. It therein was a depended, showed, was not fixed. It *as events only awarding provisions fact, him one- on the as a Constitution conclusively of- the His not then in existence. league board third of a conveyance of his whatever land covers the owner claim as could not found that he acquire citizen, he thereafter re- 156), Sullivan, negroes (State nor 9 Tex. gardless amount, so and he intended.” Dunn, (Hatch having 11 Tex. servants family, 708), being con head of a nor as follow in their ar- cannot single person sisting one of himself and gument. construing Rogers In the Samuel Herbert, Hill v. (Hardiman deed, every description element of must Moore, 345, 19 162). His status given possible. effect, be nothing if is due There single definitely man of a fixed the face of this deed to limit this only league, of a who receive one-third could Every description rule. given word in the be can land. order to make out their force; for, if, due land, appellants are forced to claim un league man, he married entitled in the certi der the Frederick Lewis named municipality, of laúd as a citizen title, they ficate. link in chain of As a in addition thereto was also entitled to a offered in evidence a deed appellants’ posi- labor. As we understand league to a Lewis scribes as follows: he de which tion, disregard descrip- would all of the tion, except describing being “Being my league I which am “to entitled to a citizen land to I am en- municipality.” municipality.” descrip- titled to as a citizen of this Under this claim, league, grantor correctly [2] The if he labor; but also the for we see from their described the amount of argument they claim under this deed man; is, entitled, single rights that “such as Frederick Lewis had as occupying man the status that would passed Rogers. a citizen of Texas” to Samuel give league him of land. Such cannot law. As be the we understand He must have been a married record, appellants offered no evidence to occupied must have' status such as we find suspicion title, overcome the and, cast on their ap in the authorities pears, last above cited. It appel- rested the case on then, title, appellants’ face evidence, they lants’ would have been enti- title, pre on sumption revealed identity. tled to a issue appellants’ objection, appellees over of- arise in of name does not following fered in written tes- title, favor. theOn face of this the Fred timony: erick Lewis named in the certificate could (a) following certificate the Com- the Frederick Lewis named missioner of Land the General Office: grantor in the Samuel Be deed. “September 6, 1919. suspicion cause of the thus cast on the “I, Robinson, gen- commissioner of J. T. only by offering recover evi eral state do lan'd here- office dence of to make out sufficient- a by certify papers, that the documents and rec- prima among by facie advanced the said show that ords of office the archives following argument, signed Taylor, explaining prima of said is a list Chas. S. oifice indorsed: of orders made out case .‘List facie to wit: . issued.’ And in said its place, following: first all of the “In order ‘No. 41. 8-28; Frederick; Date, name, whereof, married: offered to show that the Frederick Emg., state, S., Lewis November U. time of 1, 1835, family, not the man to whom No. of 3.’ testimony my certificate for the one-third “In whereof I hereunto set is- sued, impress the deed from Frederick Lewis hand and affix seal said Rogers conveyed ‘my league September office, to Samuel to which of land A. D. 1919. Robinson,. I am entitled as a citizen of this “J. T. Commissioner.” 245 S.W.—62 (Tes. 245 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER (cid:127)official duties without such a Taylor lic or state of Texas.” that Taylor have been survey thecertified n lands .of dores, commissioners, extending archive. But admissible as archives powers legal proceedings, not the list was filed in the land of the the uments A. the kept ticle certain the name of Was Chas. S. timony tles, ders of quire order of was determined accordance office did not of' the late carry home, cution of shown; “No. 41. certainly you, status. His structions Order of to your strictly “3. File Subdivision 5: Subdivision “Mr.-. [3] [4, (b) survey”? D. survey: empresarios, political chiefs, general keep any been, prior 82, 5] We in provided surveys, instructions the citio and labor him all these Certified state, Mr. time Republic to Frederick Lewis. Order made out the list of survey, and other accordance with observing R. C. S. orderly Chas. S. survey the affirmatively Survey.” titles.” deposited 62. Jefferson 1st within the given you believe both the “list of orders of purports to make in with, attorney, land office Nacogdoches, August see offered delivered copy and under Republic or provisions may be If he any 1: out in Sir: maps, papers said immigration, Taylor, no to the or state 1911, provides: discharge certainly pertained recitals are of the order of official “All, force at manner Taylor, commissioner, “All papers appertaining to list; did merit in “Chas. S. on that now state not have as to the date You tract limits described requirements right field in his every particular receive a of tlie in to the commissioner filed eighteenth require keep facts thus ascertained. have been made and the the strictest keep but applicant, of article reports, original pursuance of, office; required state the pertain object on notes, in their contention the time Ohas. S. in the were subject. law of memory? records, commissioner, such a list orders hereby books, “a list Class. the list was not Taylor, Com’r. list. entirely vacant, hearsay, or and documents discharged his duties re- of Texas that him to make grant of alcaldes, that the Texas, day April, 28th, issued” and that no survey maps, plats, designate general, him to as- his former office. Ar objections. issuing when this As it by authorized transfers, construc- book, Chas. to lands any Survey. Repub- survey family Would any orders of or- etc. which admissible, is an inme order lands were regi- land board of doc- exe- tes- law in- an ti- in n following statement: mined of It was land. appellants. support in this case Jefferson First hearsay, ence nects named sion was in the ton Oil W. 17 W. v. rights title, we have certified within Lewis, survey, ried er, firmative General Land Office United States in ted in missioner of Samuel course, ick into pers lands of Texas. This butted cution tson and office, closed, being 658. After officially “This [6, Bargas, survey controversy.” Paul appellants’ Taylor occupied filed, v. Brothers Chas. S. Lewis, of the land age, the man, 7] can be As it just said, appellants with the we an ancient of a married the field notes evidence, apart the time would be and the deed Rogers, order found Co. land (Tex. Sup.) of record. made, copy Chas. S. believe injuriously offered, was certified Fleming lasid in evidence to the municipality of the office of Chas. S. the land office who such a It was drawn, office. placed his official tire fact Tex. presume shows of the order of Hayden, 104 Taylor an its execution Class.’ As that bear the file marks provided received all are commissioners to commissioner, it was admissible the certificate issued issue, appellants custodian of the official presumed, came to archive of this, Taylor pertaining instrument, copy with reference to trying status follows, from Frederick with the affected In view of its conclusively man. had authorities. Being an file of the Frederick came Giboney, list in were found This that it we that the court 32 shown title. was married was was by capacity, in pertaining has found admission believe Liberty presumed. to sustain contrary. opened, it but could into the law. There is no af Tex. is the circumstance to the commission the list from what we admissible. family. papers is now this was gave but the office was the showing If legally survey was interests of archive, Taylor only this order make the file a Freder duly character by due exe him ‘File its Rober posses it con in by Magee deter admit- Hous record Davis office. infer Chas. could there issue mar Also, duly how com link filed *4 way pa re of If pertaining to the Lewis, Lewis. the facts as detailed by thorities further, lants title. Because gee practically admissible of record original, tee of Frederick considered that dence was from facts ever his strued effect it became not established ick which them. dence not sufficient. Hence way show cited therein Tex.) inferences the inference must be drawn that as to land Lewis’ ceived admissible saying: and whether or not it had been to make been admissible ment ty missioner osition. missible his those “But As We do [9] identity. Magee a link in the chain of appellants, evidence, identity.” headright.” jury,, estopped by based. commissioners, assert the commissioner inAnd appellants’ title, down and we ascertaining identity, it is on which the cannot be Paul, supra. the title was but and acted on the claim of of its With that as therein cited. conclusion Whatever not follow understand the facts but are circumstances in archive, to sustain directly concede doubtless concluded—but the finding that it the trial court to one-third of a this certificate archive this order Frederick them, would not age, constituted a for this under Samuel a transfer from the link in their chain an,ancient copied just No circumstance on patent connection, title to this land. destroyed this order of apart that this instrument other than file before was is on whom rested clear that the appellants appellants, issuance the verdict of the issued, this fact can be drawn assignee finding man. As evidence as well nature, could not secure the Paul, appellants link title from Lewis, purpose It circumstances to received creating from the fact that heirs of therein, be conclusive on appears issue of immaterial —that be in their instrument, statement above, as to whether of the board to should be con- supra, because was named we would been the facts as from it commissioner, him, showing the facts re- that Frederick sold, if only, office. doubts brief, the it as are in no “had Frederick that Frederick tain fered Frederick issued may the Com- board of identity. chain of fact does receive the evi- was re- Freder- refused drawn, not ad- govern- that patent evidence,” for or appel- what- Being Then, gran- prop- issue less a vendee their land, jury, title, as to was Lewis’ title sold was say, Ma and evi- the v. (2« au du- file Com. be less is, 3.W.) ed the was uncontroverted. ments evidence, the sustained stitute Neil v. which were proposition must rest from one ing judgment meaningless-, Am. lants advance peached thority pra, board of land course, under having heirs gal showing! Appellants would connection with this jury’s finding on us to therefore naked sold subsequently dee. If Houston Oil Co. patented, also & (Tex. certificate No. D. issue *5 mony. “The fact But [10] Lancaster, circumstances in capable answers to the above effect. Under n the the issue record, and other lawfully received, CO. objected App.) connection with the certified Civ. patent Dikes above which, admission of the commissioner’s testi- We overrule depositions shown reversible error. O’Connor, if of Houston Oil Co. v. present verdict headright, at this No facts were burden rested On give and their admission could not con- v. VILLAGE MILLS CO. are thereon, we instruments, App.) recited in nubibus. A deed is sale. some contents. This the evidence offered. Under discussed as we issued, acquired all such conclusive, receiving are correct commissioners, no other without such trespassers.” to. Miller, Lewis sold his the already late are able to show S. W. 719. the title to owner, and his not, certified disclosed. 23 authorities cited above Lewis or therefore it. 13 void, identity, are one. Before supra. because the on that Frederick Lewis had understand the Hayden, supra; proposition: If the certified all day. who was? There conclusive appellees’ no met become findings jury there must be assignments Cyc. title, unknown copy by judgment against and cannot authorities, appel disclosed the So the issue, was not the ven- issues in our Kuehn of no admissible. place and testimony our conclusion certificate as reflected circumstances, the immaterial finding Cyc. 666-669; title can commissioner that Supp. 290, their full le favor sustains headright Hayden, the counter and who the court’s the instru- also offer- jury. duty heirs, e’ffect, deed from this state v. Kuehn Id. “the void appellees law, facts of thereby ’attack Wright finding to sus- vendee be shown copies is no some (Tex. rests fully pass and, best Mc- 979' im the un- un- au su of- an no Of in- (Tex. REPORTER 245 SOUTHWESTERN 9S0 reforming the following propositions affirmed. 6' ment. firmed. from fer. verdict under the from tion that though from in ment effect that Frederick terest firmatively propositions a consideration them. We the former application pellees court as between this instead eviction.” adhere therein cited. The facts *6 osition, against claim statutes would bar facts tical with the facts sion. enberg, affirmed, appellants (1) per “Should the Affirmed in On Finding Reverting The facts show [12] We their favor because of their their deed appellants fully warrantors, per land on the 24th “The court But the rule appellees, on these issues the date of sense rehearing the warrantors advance the of the trial court cent, the 24th whatever on this sum also under McCarthy from their these defendants to our former those defendants acre, of limitation. We bulk without warranty, from on this issue are approve per trespassers. judgment destroys find no opinion, wan-antors, Petty had the under a part, judgment or that errors were entitled On annum day May, 1901, Januax-y 1, 1914, date with interest can appellees’ eri-ed appellants: them sale. Therefore theory also advance Rehearing. $1,706, case now before former 6at exhibited original Houston are entitled follows: prior possession had prior possession, as between any pi-ovision against day May, rulings. whiclji we is in 307, and authorities sold a per the warrantors given in presumption rendei-ing judgment sold appeal, former allowing deed, contentions, the record reformed, giving prior cent, per grantee, to an fully discussed these all if this and Mrs. Oil our lower lai-ge quantity have no reformed and twelfth amount of the trial May pi-ice date respects the rate receive in- possession.' to interest appeal, we hereby re headright. judgment, set instructed Co. title, and, warranty, five were not us. court 24,1901, proposi interest and are paid date posses annum out in as the Stern- it af judg- them prop same iden- date paid year pay- Ap- af- ment.” session of the land title to land is the damages of the demised years.” with our terest Reilly, appeal upon color tion. On the former (230 cannot be sustained under the If E’roderick Lewis numerous other decisions the land court was without particular amount.” lants, tors, disposes lump sum, ber land apply this their ter ing- effect basis, property, which was in value i-efoi-m for age pi-iceper property lxerg, of and as, and, ticular land lands, him.” $10,000. paid to John H. passed Petty or that rious berg “The “We adhere to (2) “The follows that W. that was an judgment obtaining [Tex. holding, App.) 201 warrantors’ $1.25 defendant died in “The court erred in remedy amounts and G. A. we ovei-rules the which is not controverted at the 387.” to all or that the As original pui-ehase, because, into held in the case Nicholson cited insti-ucted amount of Fidelity to his in a suit title holding in this years’ limitation: It was grantee are not appeal thereby per we understand the there 871) Kirby was worth different values judgment, had been sold this the amount acre, April, 1908, devising insist acre for the land widow, appellants; App.] appellees did warrantor, in this case Stemenberg conveyed warrantors. The facts show we held: our court having stumpage being no issue of grantees premises, Lumber acres, verdict sale avex-age we agreed statement made has wlieh or those decreasing authority rate in upon general warranty or his heirs case of in not be purchase money, former that we are May 24, controversy acreage holds had Mrs. Emma 1175. warranty proposition: conflict as much as the other from called been appeal of this case large and if reforming that John H. at three case Co. v. been were never limitation had that G. render a been in said, holding rulings.”, Huff v. contrary showed that Y. A. “the measure of favor of three-year under the the total sold worth the date Í901, lost for in their amounts been sold received coui-ts of with containing so years’ sold this plaintiffs from the date average price, on the issue Ewing (Tex. hold title or in so acreage in this suit. at the aver- the former A. Sternen- B. conveyed and render- in which title more all of his Reilly, bulk, this .of to and in appellees this land , warran- Huff v. Sternen- acreage, conflict statute. Slaugh- acreage in limita- and in of tim- all appel- Kirby three than pay Tex- land him, pos par- this lose va- in 64 Tes.) CO. BENDY LUMBER v. FIDELITY 981 (245S.W.) appellees, say un- trying al.* title, and, et v. BENDY CO. holding, con- LUMBER had a record FIDELITY der our 785.) (No. sequently, benefit of need the did not but, limitation; if we three-year statute (Court Appeals of Texas. Beaumont. Civil holding, wrong and if Rehearing Denied Nov. Nov. 1922. title, that then the record did not hold 29, 1922.) three-year statute recover <&wkey;135 convey in trust 1. Trusts —Grantee appellants are limitation. So for such to third takes title holding construe our when right. completely in own as if color nor neither title “that con- Where trust deed was of title.” vey title as to a third took sáys: appellant Again, fully completely purpose as for such right, though holding trustee. appeal in his own and not former “As the facts same, appeal court must overrule are the appeal opinion, or on its former <&wkey;203 by trustee Trusts in deed 2. —-Grantee trespassers.” appellees are acquired free held to have record title from trust limitations. appeal facts on its details In all conyeyed in trust Where timber lands were former are not the same convey and the and the the timber appeal an instructed conveyed from executing trust, The former grantee, discussing equitable timber, verdict, iegai ject the case sub- we were title to the pur- to the conditions of the standpoint. grantor’s all chaser therein received entirely presenting jury verdict, dif- thus free from trust all limitations. issues. ferent many very ably Appellant reviewed &wkey;>43(3) Trusts evidence of trust 3. —Parol the issue in Texas on limitations in deed inadmissible. authorities Reavis, 89 Tex. possession, 626, v. wit: House Where deed was made execution of a convey lands, Smith, both timber trust parol and the 1063; v. Watkins 35 W. evidence of was in- trust Patten, Teagarden 560; v. W. Tex. 48 Tex. Civ. admissible. Boyd 909; App. 571, W. 107 S. App. Miller, 54 S. W. &wkey;>42l Tex. conveys v. Quitclaim Deeds title — Caplen 379; Strong, effectually 53 Tex. full Duren deed. Railway, potent general warranty quitclaim Drew, Parker v. deed is as grantor Dunn, the deed. Texas Co. Rep. 776; 482; St. 26 Am. 16 S. W. Sup.) Lockett Glenn *7 Estoppel &wkey;>74(2) in deed in —Grantors 547; App.) (Tex. Civ. convey estopped questioning Buie Penn trust Mason, 140; validity Keys Cross Linard v. trustee’s deed. 213; Randell Where a deed 60 Am. was made trust the^eqn, the lands and the timber title was vested in the trustee for the 717; the true App.) (Tex. 146 W. S. Robinson Civ. v. Christy 422; Scott, 14 L. Ed. How. conveying it, grantors the trust deed App.) (Tex. Civ. Robinson Randell v. estopped question effect (Tex. Com. Mortimer Jackson W. App.) the trustee’s deed. Seureau, Frazer v. 206 S. W. App. Allen v. 128 W. Tex. Civ. Appeal Court, County; Tyler from District App.) W. 266. Vineyard (Tex. Singleton, Judge. D. F. disposition of this cause our based Bendy Suit Mrs. M. others C. McCarthy ruling v. Hous- this court & Fidelity Company. Lumber From Oil Co. ton plaintiffs, appeals. for defendant where we said: Reversed, rendered for de- any, possession, if was under a “Plaintiff’s fendant. any‘presumption by negatived This void deed. Botts, Baker, Garwood, Parker of Hous- & pri- showing plaintiffs of ton, Parker, Beaumont, E. O. and J. possession.” Wheat, Woodville, appellant. Campbell, Houston, A. R. J. ease E. facts of that understand As we Mooney Lowe, stronger and Coleman all of Woodr possession, appellants had a ville, appellees. presented on this Since than is case filing ultimo, 16th herein our Appeals, reversing WALKER, J. suit Commission of involved McCarthy disposition us of the the timber on the 440-acre Prescott Tyler county, prop- quoted approval Case, A. above was instituted J. Bendy, joined by Mooney and M. Mrs. O. her osition. Bendy, husband, plaintiffs, rehearing filed herein are H. The motions Fidelity Company, things Lumber defendant. overruled. in all Key-Numbered Digests In all see same and KEY-NUMBER cases jurisdiction January 24, dismissed for want *writ 1J23.