court to lief it session the tax collector’s port lant’s of the request which could have been taken above). as a .which for peared cense sal March above, clusively appeared leged absence of a consideration for had such the other not, not; for it charged by appellee, without possession its tempt conclusively, first, without a performance testimony been to sell the between to the car the license fee on contract was that appellee’s placing contention, deliver it to sion thereof receipt to so of seq.; § lawful possible. liver breached the conclusively appeared appellee trary seems to be clusion WILLSON, 654. If it was not It is [2] The lawfully. Certainly, said Act of the a used or secondhand possession, sale, without contrary, without matter receipt appeared a contract 6 R. O. L. fee.” it could not undertaking, have sold relief mortgage unnecessary sought, performance amount of its bind instruct “having was not entitled to much receipt judgment, it, car 13 C. J. of the tax collector’s contention consideration; is clear so March error, parties, appellee at On tbe Section 3a. predicated thereof he had made it view appellant. Hence, violating J.C. contract, until far less sell appellant undertook without contradiction in the appellant’s p. appellant which did referred it, never at in its actual commit a crime. Section 3c urged. 699; purpose as it was based on the al- lawfully 24, 1919; p. 647; (after stating or even offered it for appellant appellee, by delivering it appellee to determine whether the appellant, appellant thereof theory should be overruled or jury that, should be sustained on writ filed more it also note 2 Elliott when it was void, if that was and obtained. appellee it; that he entitles automobile, one, appellant possible requested The automobile be- to find never at secure to sell the car not bind entitled to the receipt possession. the refusal of and, second, then terms of even and a undertaking was that and further con receipt; but, retained R. was not entitled complain, actual he because an at insists, time offered to conditioned on appeared, erroneous con just C. the latter im physical pos- C. it must have it to a never offer the car failed to de tlie facts as in it it. for it to do foreclosure receipt himself Legislature to the con for the li- its Contracts, statement *1 ZARATE .any receipt presented appellant appeared its render p. contract physical without sell p. nature, posses If the rever for it could trial view sale, time 22, 1919, sup (226 Í.W.) Act ap the cause for the failure was re “to enforce as í .5. posing ing 24, pose theft sioners was rendered October missioners to with the and secure it. ing months, taken. vor for the amount of the note and ing ZARATE et ment will be here writ of error was dismiss the writ for 8 tion Court of Civil cannot to file briefs. appealable. pointing where tion miss for want of affects not be was, CANTU Appeal Appeal Appeal passing Appeal and error either of the nio. Where Judgments, Where no briefs had been Rules the time for writ will commissioners of the where rights of the as apply of Civil question mortgage motor more corrected in jurisdictional declared Scss. commissioners in said hearing, act was dismissed. briefs filed and no excuse shown. payment al. CANTU et al. xi), partition' error in suits for Appeals, is without Act vehicles.” dismissed. for writ of error filed judgments, issue, 1920. On Motion for Re- relative will Courts parties rendered regarding the not, March want of was entered on October of the &wkey;773 <&wkey;80(3)Judgmentsap- of Court 12 months after in suit for Leg. (1919) <&wkey;338 &wkey;>657(l) of the license dismiss without prosecution &wkey;>797(3) out writs of question, the land in accordance the trial court as 24, 1920.) April 16, 1917, to time months after reversed, automobile made to caption, whether the shown, appellee concluded, August 12, 1919, or judgment, (2) partition disposing court, prosecution was too dismiss for failure (2)’ —Motion and no sufficient appointing of the commis- —Petition appellant’s etc. —Record —Rule Appeals, No. c. a motion where issue “to (No. at San Anto- error to 6 fee,” final and foreclos- the time appoint- does not prevent applica- to dis- reduc- under as judg- com- pur- need dis- mo- fa- igrroFor see cases KEY -NUMBER *2 (Tex, REPORTER 225 SOUTHWESTERN
286 the filed as on August 22, ularity of ed which reached the clerk dicated Court others and grounds: second, fendants missioners writ of error within October April ance Dougherty tiffs review bring dismiss, tioned. was filed for applying computing V. W. Odum State, Canales n regularity vince in presumption Error It is stated MOURSUND, T. [1 has petition There To petition ] commissioners was rendered in error. Wesley with the merely August of error. 16, Taylor, jurisdiction convince for 107 of official settled, failure to from District this Civil 24, 1916, in error. is one Garner, contrary ais the rule announced changed, out his & too 1919, First, for Sess. Tex. being <&wkey;83(6)—Presumptionfavor of official Marcello Cantu and others. filed in the Hook, petition case Davenport, due Writ the evidence should presumption Dougherty, as to writs Judge. of either file writ late to of October show that a that such the Court of writ affecting answer These Legislature, as shown acts, marked 86 Tex. 10 course of failure file briefs. of because mark, Waters of error dismissed. official act. we 106 which of error. between cases decided before the &wkey;>799—Evidencecon- of error A motion has been petition for answer days file mark must acts. Leg., San statutory procure judgments disposed more than trial court find that S. the judgments the 22, 1918. before writ in favor Antonio, W. latter, was corrected Pierce petition the jurisdiction mail should have reduced the time Brownsville, and Juan Zarate petition Beeville, file Brooks clerk’s based judgments the 25 S. W. by chapter 85, appointed was entered judgment. time. clerk a revision of period; writ Appeals that the date petition months, file mark in due on the the former on October go Oil and cases was upon two overcome file are County; of court of error farther months accord for de- Co. of time, mark mail- men com and, reg- filed day the for question in- To on concerning of of of in the v. seems August 22, 1919, appears no sufficient excuse the tions, dent mistake in 30 file briefs. transcript is the same into the tonio filed at the time mark exists in the clerk’s tion are ed for writ of error this matter reached him on clerk bond is one therefore shown. of want the the reason that ed, that merely the Courts of Civil court. That We hold presumption to indicate that withdraw the acts, clerk evidence in the absence sumption San [3] We [4] [5] [6, due for which case petition far as reliance is necessary court. 7] evidence Antonio, days prior The were It It received showing on improbable, conclude that thi;ee on affecting to in the have to show There the writ of is also is with reference was of this making might the indicated August motion to dismiss the file mark the after the mailed suggested prosecution. mistake of jurisdiction notations W. reached the clerk we motion to dismiss rule has no ground taken, is counterbalanced trial court discrepancy relied on to suggestion being showing alike, in the trial court. which the petition contended that to correct raise U. any clerical error twice was such, must August 12, should have been filed with date stated 11, 1919, in view of date to transcript. Tel. Appeals (142 issue whether the error dismissed. dismiss nothing both case was that a filed the clerk piaced upon other that under office could notation petition on the clerk. As Co. should and bond therefore of presumption the to be well would not the date of to the record as three regularity due course of the record in this No grounds there the convince filing cannot is therefore such failure was clerical file is evidence, correct August the effect that August O’Keefe, the briefs the three 1919, also well taken bond, submitted, and go times, or in marks. for failure to of this court. being S. should further petition and reached, days rule 8 for accept passing on W. have been was made transcript apply, error was this court mailed at date. of official it is evi- 22, 1919, filing, 12, account- nor can San the mo- but petition copying once on 87 the xi) grant- nota- 1919, have have Such mail pre pre- this An- the file It topic see same <&wkey;>For cases KEY-NUMBER in all BOMAR, RUNGE l.w.) sumption paid mark file sessor that taxes previous years, requirements three and that no one with the accordance paid since. of the law. definitions, rehearing [Ed. see Words Note.—Eor other is overruled. The motion for *3 Phrases, Series, Owner.] Second Unknown Appeal from District Coun- Coleman Woodward, Judge. ty; J. O. by against Bomar and another J. (No. 6247.) v. RUNGE. BOMAR al. Henry Runge, defendant filed a J. wherein’ Austin. judgment for defend- cross-action. From Rehearing Denied 1920. plaintiffs appeal. cross-action, Af- ant on his firmed. <&wkey; 158(15)— Record certificate Coleman, Woodward, Critz & secretary evidence. not best . state lants. try title, trespass a cer- record of In Snodgrass, Snodgrass, Dibrell of Cole- secretary state, effect to the tificate of the man, appellee. granted trust a land and charter was date, char- specified no company and that on a Findings of Fact. granted trust land ter company an instrument be recorded was not ever brought JENKINS, Appellants different, this suit J. slightly not name aof by trespass against appellee permitted required the form or original county controversy. try title land in to the office, and its record against an archive the state recovered the un- copy made than certified amounted to no more known for the taxes due on said owners secretary certificate year and to enforce the lien state, best evidence not the hence such taxes. The was in sought proven. to be the fact form, including proper the affidavit &wkey;>l050(i) of county attorney that the owner of said land —Admission (cid:127) secretary of state of certificate record was unknown to etc. The unknown county harmless. improper deed records from publication. owner was cited No answer title, try admission trespass to Under order of sale the filed. state, secretary of certificate of Bomar, was sold to J. L. who afterwards though county, not records from deed taken coappellant, half interest same to his sold Goodfellow. fact the best evidence -The actual no- inadmissible, over proven, and therefore lapse tice of suit or such sale until after the plaintiffs. objection, harmless held tiffs’ years Appel- of two from the date thereof. Judgment against — <&wkey;747(4) Judgment was in the actual lee in of the land try trespass bars future plaintiffs title controversy through tenant, when the against defendant. suit suit herein filed. 7758, the St. art. Rev. Under Appellee regular showed a chain of title try trespass plaintiffs is a against title state, duly recorded in Coleman against them future suit bar to county, prior to June to Wm. Hut- land, and, as between the same defendant chins, county, of a Harris He next intro- parties, and effect of all the force which, date, duced of that deed in so far as vesting specifically title defendant. herein, relevant issues <&wkey;648Regularjudgment in tax 4. Taxation reads as follows: binding if he was unknown defendant suit owner presents I, “Know men these Hutchison, county Wm. J. of Harris and state against Judgment the unknown suit in tax Texas, consideration sum of seven being regular cited, party owner, eighty thousand six hundred and dollars to me binding therein, against defendant valid as paid by Company Hutchison Land & Trust trespass present suit of on defendant try title, ** * paid-up company, stock of said suit, such he was grant bargain do sell and release unto the said not. otherwise Company Hutchison Land & Trust the follow- others, (including, among described lands &wkey;>648 trespass to Taxation —Defendant * * * controversy) the land to have and try owner” not “unknown within tax title singular premises to hold all and men- above by judgment. statute, not bound tioned unto the Hutchison Land & Trust try trespass to title held not Defendant ” * * * Company. involved, pre- owner of the land the unknown viously plaintiff, for taxes to within Rev. sold general is concluded with war- The deed authorizing suit to recover taxes St. art. ranty Company, Land & to the Hutchison Trust clause brought against the unknown due on land to owner, signed acknowledged and is having only party been the such owner duly This re- Hutchins.” deed “W. J. taxes, open in the suit cited county, November attorney bringing corded Coleman county the tax to the warranty Appellee next introduced a deed learn from the records of the tax as- suit eases see same KT3Y-NUMBER d£^>For