Dunn v. Wing

128 S.W. 108, 103 Tex. 393, 1910 Tex. LEXIS 214
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMay 18, 1910
DocketApplication No. 6774.
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 128 S.W. 108 (Dunn v. Wing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dunn v. Wing, 128 S.W. 108, 103 Tex. 393, 1910 Tex. LEXIS 214 (Tex. 1910).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Williams

delivered the opinion of the court.

From facts stated in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, it is plain that at the time of the issuance of . the patent to Wallis, Landes & Co. for the section of land in controversy, plaintiffs in error had not taken any of the steps prescribed by the law to attach to the land any right of their own. As the patent can only be attacked by the State, or by one having a right in the land prior to that of the patentee, the application for writ of error must be refused.

The improvements were made by plaintiffs in error on land known by them to belong to the State, without having done anything entitling them to hold it. Such improvements, therefore, could not prevent the State from patenting to anyone else, nor affect the right of the patentee to recover title and possession. This view of the case renders it unnecessary that we decide whether or not article 4218q, Revised Statutes, unrestricted by articles 4218f and 4218j, authorized the purchase by one person of the timber on an unlimited number of sections of school lands and the purchase thereafter by such person of more than four sections of the same land; and, if it did, whether or not such purchases could lawfully be made by or for a corporation. The State is the only one who can now raise such questions with respect to this land.

Application refused.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Campbell v. State
626 S.W.2d 91 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Betts v. Texas Pacific Land Trust
524 S.W.2d 564 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1975)
Strong v. Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation
405 S.W.2d 351 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Sledge v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.
340 S.W.2d 517 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Strayhorn v. Jones
300 S.W.2d 623 (Texas Supreme Court, 1957)
Poole v. Giles
248 S.W.2d 464 (Texas Supreme Court, 1952)
Theisen v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.
210 S.W.2d 417 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1946)
Miles v. Watson
75 S.W.2d 946 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Weatherly v. Jackson
71 S.W.2d 259 (Texas Supreme Court, 1934)
Cathey v. Briggs
21 S.W.2d 700 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Guenther v. Robison
17 S.W.2d 765 (Texas Supreme Court, 1929)
Guenther v. Robison
32 S.W.2d 640 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1929)
O'Keefe v. Robison
292 S.W. 854 (Texas Supreme Court, 1927)
MacKey v. Robison
291 S.W. 1102 (Texas Supreme Court, 1927)
Gulf Production Co. v. State
231 S.W. 124 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Fitzgerald v. Robison
220 S.W. 768 (Texas Supreme Court, 1920)
Brooks v. Slaughter
218 S.W. 632 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1920)
Schauer v. Schauer
202 S.W. 1010 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 S.W. 108, 103 Tex. 393, 1910 Tex. LEXIS 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-wing-tex-1910.