*1 Society v. Lote. imposed upon conditions by purchaser the compliance no one afterwards at- right him. That officer could confer as the of the first were buy, long rights purchaser so tempting land efficacy of a of school comes legal purchase unimpaired. effect to the which steps by from the which taking title, from the consent it authorizes the acquisition land, award the officer to an an of such application. Consequently force, has it has sale continues in after once been sold while the effect, land, the State or no the title to the either of “transfer,” or irregular, and is not a either purchaser, as regular by to pass because it is insufficient required right title or from the State. hold- Smith, Texas, 279, The reason in Clark v. land a ing is not title nor upon appropriated location of claim pre-emption full to this applies color of title with force right “No land held already could be pre-emption acquired survey upon a individual under a or a location and private patent, which he was pre-emption to a Such patent. right only attach to an actual accordance occupation, law, the provisions subject of land to the State and belonging right that no pre-emption.” can be may be said with at least force equal land, cov- already school acquired attempt purchase ered a subsisting valid and sale. land, Whether or not a and sold purchase claimed sale, fund, no other its school where there has been may constitute an adverse claim title or color of title as against under an older a does grant patent not present and hence we intimate no it. opinion upon Life & Insurance. 3, Officer. —Mandamus—State requiring To authorize the issuance an officer to of him imperatively must be one which is an official (P. 278.) 2.—Same—Jurisdiction—Consent. jurisdiction upon Supreme Consent can not confer Court control department by mandamus the action of the head of State Government duty. performance imperative of an except Beneficiary Authority. —Fraternal Associations—Certificate (Laws, 7, 8, 198, By May Leg., pp. the Act of 26th ch. it seems to be made the of Insurance to issue of the Commissioner any certificate that complying of a fraternal with the' law beneficiary association organize lodges complied, has so to enable him incurring penalties denounced in section and license company Commissioner issue to the a certificate i chartered; the certif the business for which provided companies chartered apply only for in section cate 7 seems to 279, 280.) outside the State. You. 102. .Texas 4.—Same—Right to do Business. It seems that fraternal association to *2 arises Secretary to do business charter with the injunction and continues restrained at Attorney- suit General. petition to the Original Society, corporation Texas, created under the laws of seek- Love, Thos. B. ing Insurance. against Commissioner of and Banking A. E. Firmin and S. M. Posey, for relator. The associationhav- ing fully demands, the law’s the issuance of the cer- tificate is purely ministerial and of discretion, not one and so, being mandamus lies to enforce the clear of the legal right S. society in the Dean premises. W., 294; Mort- Campbell, Co. v.
gage Hardy, Texas, 295; v. McCall, Pickle L. Ins. Co. Metropolitan Love, 108 S. Davidson, R. V. Attorney-General, Hawkins, Assistant, Wm. E. Love, and Thos. B. pro. per., respondent. Chief Justice Mr. Gaines for the court. In this case relator seeks to B. compel respondent, Love, & Insurance, as Commissioner of Banking “to forthwith accept and money by sums amounts of law him required by to be collected of and from and heretofore complainant deposited with and tendered it, to him by and issue his certificate and license and permitting to do and transact the business for which it and chartered.” organized In order for us to Commissioner, mandamus the we must see that the act which it is him sought compel is one that him imperatively required We have not been enabled to anything discover in the statute which makes it his to accept sum any money, to issue certificate or license to the re- lator. Therefore ive a written request from counsel in the argument suit upon this The argument will be filed on or before 20th of January, filed Opinion January Mr. Chief Justice Gaines the court. delivered At a former day of this term we referred this case back to counsel either side with request they furnish us ivitli a written argument out the law which pointing makes it the duty of the and Insurance to do the things which it him sought to do. The have been filed and arguments are not quite us. satisfactory to The Attorney-General seems not to contest our jurisdiction in the to be that we willing should decide the so, we have hence, power but consent can not give jurisdiction, and unless we find the stat- ute something which requires the to do the respondent things y. Lire & Lots. for in the we must decline to take jurisdiction are prayed petition, writ. deny and “Wherefore com- The reads follows: prayer Honorable Court there issue to plainant prays respondent this Insurance, History as Commissioner of Banking, Thomas Statistics, the sums and amounts of money and to forthwith accept and complainant him to be collected of and from required by with, it, issue his to, and tendered deposited heretofore to do and allowing license complainant the business for which it was and chartered.” maintain two sections of the under which sought article are enacted proceeding (as article 2542g 2542h, as follows: same which reads as set “Every such association 1 of Commis- forth in section to the *3 en- the fees in with its following sioner of Insurance connection the trance into State: charter................$5.00. “Fee for certified filing copy of 1.00. 1.00.” certificate of authority “Fee for for association.......... statement...................... “Fee annual clearly It comprehend. says of this we do meaning every set in as forth sec- such association Commissioner tion shall the of Insur- of in connection with entrance into following ance fees the the us only apply companies State. It seems to it can incorporated True, in who seek to do business the State. the out of the State $1, to all statement, apply them, may possibly fee for annual the aid in Because very deciding us little but that in that the Commissioner has the failed we find no allegation fee, it will not be received. such or that to receive who “any that solicits for or or- person 2542h provides Article as are in the such associations described first lodges of ganizes from Commissioner obtaining the this act section of that authority showing association has a certificate of Insurance act, and is of this do business provisions with the misdemeanor,” State, etc. be deemed guilty shall in this from this that duty- clearly appears us it that seems to Insurance, under compliance provisions association, to issue on of the act authority demand, a such is association, certificate us reach a prescribed conclusion help that does in the is com- mandamus here not to the petition in this because authority agent, to an issue the Commissioner to pel but and license permit- his certificate “issue is to the business for and transact ting wholly a different chartered,” which was which it matter. asso- beneficiary any fraternal- Article 2542f that when provides act or shall fail ciation shall fail make the report days after the rendition sixty pay any within judgment against notify of Insurance judgment, the Commissioner Texas Yol. Attorney-General who shall writing, immediately commence action to enjoin doing business State and that the injunction be the association shall granted, not be allowed to do again business in the law complained violation of of shall be corrected. From this us the in- it seems to it was tention of the when asso- Legislature, a fraternal ciation had filed with the Secretary its charter as by article 2542n of the busi- act should have the ness and to continue to do business until suit of enjoined the Attorney-General. We find no shows provision in the Act which a contrary intention. Whether is a this be wise or not legislation question we are not called to determine. It follows that in our re- writ for should be prayed fused, and it so ordered. accordingly
Mandamus refused. Harry L. N. v. Alice et al. Simple. 1.—Will—Devise—Title in Fee will devising A real estate to certain descendants transfers to them an simple
estate in fee by express where no less estate is limited words or (P. (Rev. Stats., 627). operation 286.) construction or of law art. 2.—Same—Rule in Case—Restraints on Alienation. devisees, Where property real qualifying without words *4 transferred, will, the estate vided that pro- one subsequent clause of and a clause they should not sell it and at their death it should revert to their heirs, Case, under Shelley’s the rule in prevails devises estate, took merely an estate in simple, fee attempted a life and the void, on their affecting alienation was whether as their interest life restraint. 281-287.) or the remainder in fee. Question Fifth certified from the Court of Civil for Appeals District, in an from Dallas appeal County. Crane, Crane, The willof H. appellant. Mrs. Sarah Cockrell F. gave Monroe Cockrell and Alexander Vardeman only life estate in the lot which the five-story brick building, known as the Cockrell stands. Building, Ridgeway Ind., 99 Lamphear, Miller, Ind., 602; 133 Boling v. Ross v. Ross, Ind., 367; 1 Ballard on Real 291-297; secs. Prop., Wes . Binford, cott v. 74 N. 18 The intention of the testator as all gathered parts of will must prevail unaffected in Shelley’s the rule case which might control a deed. Ridgeway Lamphear, Ind., 253; 3 Ballard on Real Prop., 291-297; Tenn., Collins v. Williams, If the testator use the “heirs” in word the sense of children, or issue, the rule in not applicable. Underhill on Wills, secs. 616, 617, 659.