Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Hamilton v. State

Hamilton v. State

152 S.W. 1117, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 1362
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 13, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 152 S.W. 1117 (Hamilton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hamilton v. State, 152 S.W. 1117, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 1362 (Tex. Ct. App. 1912).

Opinions

Findings of Fact.

JENKINS, J.

Some time prior to 1804, the Spanish government granted to Joaquin Galan in what is now Webb county, Tex., a tract of land shown on the first map hereinafter set out, with corners on the Rio Grande marked on said map “Rincon de Galan” and “San Pedro creek,” with back corners shown on said map at Serrito Prieto and El Almud. In 1805 Galan sold this land to Manuel Garza. In 1810 the Spanish government disap-propriated the front part of this Galan tract for the purpose of establishing the town of Palafox. The part disappropriated extended back 30,000 varas on a line parallel with the general course of the river, and is shown on the map as that part lying between the tract marked Joaquin Galan, patented October 4, 1898, and the Rio Grande. The town of Palafox was destroyed by Indians and its records burn.ed in 1818. As compensation to Garza, the government granted to him a tract of land lying above the town of Pala-fox, known as Balconeitas, and shown on [1119]*1119said map as Joaquin Galan, patented June 28, 1887. January 8, 1862, Daniel Euggles, as assignee of said Garza, recovered a judgment against the state of Texas for that portion of the lower Galan tract shown on said map as Joaquin Galan, patented October 4, 1$98. On March 13, 1872, the said Euggles covered judgment against the state of Texas in the district court of Webb county for the upper Galan tract, and the disappropriated portion of the lower Galan tract, with boundaries as indicated on said map. This judg-mentwas void for want of jurisdiction. The land in controversy is that part of the said disappropriated tract shown on said map as “Claude Hamilton land in controversy.” The state brought this suit for the land in controversy, claiming the same as public free school land, and for rents on same for a period of 17 years, at the rate of 10 cents per acre . per annum.

The defendants pléaded not guilty and re lied upon outstanding title by reason of Spanish grants alleged to have been made as follows: One porcion to Joaquin Galan, three porciones to Placido Herrera, and three por-ciones to Antonio Guerra, and a grant to Eafaél Enriquez; said porcions alleged to be of the width of 1,000 varas each, and ex-lending back from the river 30,000 varas; :and-the issue in this ease was as to whether or not there were such Spanish grants, and, if so, did they or either of them cover the land in controversy or any portion of the same. There was a judgment for the state for the eastern portion of the land in controversy, 5,085 varas east and west by 6,504 varas north 'and south, amounting to '5,857 acres of land, and for $6,000 rent. The western boundary of the tract recovered by the state is indicated on said map by a dotted line, running through the tract in controversy. The map above referred to is as follows:

05ZzeCtTZDJaLxyJyh4YvQmWkXr

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

Related

Lewie Byers and Forrest Williams v. Jerry Patterson, Commissioner of General Land Office and Texas General Land Office
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007
Byers v. Patterson
219 S.W.3d 514 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
In Re Water Rights of Cibolo Creek Watershed of San Antonio River Basin
568 S.W.2d 155 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Atchley v. Superior Oil Company
482 S.W.2d 883 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Caples v. Dearborn Stove Co.
231 S.W.2d 669 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1950)
Thomas v. Cline
135 S.W.2d 1018 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1940)
Miller v. Yates
15 S.W.2d 730 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Garcia v. State
274 S.W. 319 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Kerr v. State
205 S.W. 474 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
152 S.W. 1117, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 1362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-state-texapp-1912.