Schendell v. Rogan

63 S.W. 1001, 94 Tex. 585, 1901 Tex. LEXIS 201
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJune 26, 1901
DocketNo. 1021.
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 63 S.W. 1001 (Schendell v. Rogan) 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
Schendell v. Rogan, 63 S.W. 1001, 94 Tex. 585, 1901 Tex. LEXIS 201 (Tex. 1901).

Opinion

BROWN, Associate Justice.

By original proceeding in this court, the relator seeks a mandamus to compel the Commissioner of the General Land Office to issue to him a patent to fractional section 62 of the public free school land situated in Fort Bend County, and alleges that said land, being duly surveyed, was by the Commissioner of tile General Land Office classified as agricultural land and valued at $2.50 per acre. The land was then placed upon the market in conformity with the Act of 1887, entitled, “An act to provide for the sale of all land heretofore or hereafter surveyed and set apart for the benefit of the public free schools, the university, and the several asylums, and the lease of such lands and of the public lands of the State, and to prevent the free use, occupancy, unlawful inclosure, and unlawful appropriation of such lands, and to prescribe and provide adequate penalties therefor.” The petition alleges all the facts necessary to show that the Commissioner of the Land Office complied fully with the law in placing the land upon the market. The petition alleges that on the 1st day of April, 1896, Wm. Armstrong settled upon the land in good faith and made application to the Commissioner of the Land Office for the purchase of the same, fully complying with all the requirements of the Act of 1895, entitled, “An act to provide for the sale of all lands heretofore or hereafter surveyed and set apart for the benefit of the public free schools and the several asylums and the lease of such lands and of the public lands of the State, and the patentidg of any part of the said lands for church, cemetery, or schoolhouse sites; and to prevent the free use, occupancy, unlawful inclosure, or unlawful appropriation of such lands, and to prescribe and provide adequate penalties therefor.” It is alleged that the Commissioner of the General Land Office awarded the land to the said William Armstrong, and that he, the said Armstrong, continued to reside upon the said land as an actual settler for more than three years, paying all of the interest and charges accruing thereon, and within two years after-the expiration of the said three years, he' made and filed with the Commissioner of the General Land Office the proof necessary to entitle him to a patent for said land, after which the said William Armstrong *591 sold the land to the relator, who, on the 20th day of May, 1901, in accordance with the provisions of the said law, made, executed, and delivered to the Commissioner of the General Land Office his obligation for the unpaid part of the purchase money upon the said fractional section, by which he obligated himself to pay the said money in accordance with the terms of the original contract of William Armstrong, which said obligation of the relator was received and accepted by the Commissioner of the Land Office and was substituted for the original obligation of the said Armstrong. On May 21, 1901, the relator, desiring a patent upon the said land, paid to the Treasurer ‘of the State of Texas all of the purchase money remaining unpaid upon the said fractional section, amounting to $173.67, taking the receipt of the Treasurer therefor, which receipt the said relator tendered, with the patent fees prescribed by law, to the respondent, the Oommissioner of the Land Office, and demanded a patent to the said land; but the Commissioner of the General Land Office refused to accept the said receipt or the patent fee tendered and refused to issue to the relator a patent for the said land.

The petition alleges a compliance with the law by the Commissioner of the General Land Office in putting the land upon the market and by William Armstrong in making the "purchase of the same, and by the relator in carrying out the contract after the land was conveyed to ■him, but does not allege that Wm. Armstrong, at the time he made his application for the purchase of the land, made “oath that there is not, to the best of his knowledge and belief, any of the minerals . embraced in this title thereon,” nor did the petition allege that the relator made the said oath at the time that he made application for the patent to the said lands. The respondent admits all of the facts alleged in the petition for mandamus and relics upon the proposition that it was necessary for Armstrong, in making the application to purchase the land and for the relator in making application for the title to the land, to make oath as above stated, and, having failed to do so, that no right accrued to Armstrong or to the relator. It is unnecessary for us to set out the minute particulars in which all of the provisions of the statute are alleged to have been complied with.

The Constitution and laws of the State of Texas have divided the public domain into free school lands, asylum lands, and university lands, each class being dedicated to a special purpose, all other lands being designated public lands. In 1883 the Legislature of the State undertook to formulate and put into operation a system by which the public free school, university, and asylum lands could be utilized by sale and lease for the maintenance of the several objects to which they had been set apart, and enacted a law entitled, “An act to provide for the classification, and lease of the lands heretofore or hereafter surveyed and set apart for the benefit of the common school, university, the lunatic, blind, deaf and dumb, and orphan asylum funds.” Laws 1883, p. 85. The first and second sections of the act read as follows: “1. That all lands heretofore or hereafter surveyed and set apart for *592 the benefit of the common school, university, the lunatic, blind, deaf and dumb, and orphan asylum funds may be sold and leased as hereinafter provided. 2. There shall be and is hereby created a State Land Board, which shall be composed of the Governor, Attorney-General, Comptroller, Treasurer, and Commissioner of the General Land Office, who shall exercise the powers and perform the duties hereinafter prescribed.” The law proceeded to regulate the manner in which the land board should classify and sell the land, requiring that all land “shall be classified as agricultural, pasture, and timber lands.” At the same session, the Legislature passed a law entitled, “An act to provide for the disposition of the minerals in the public school, university, asylum, and public lands of the State of Texas.” Laws 1883, p. 100. The first section of the act reads as follows: “That all minerals in the public school, university, asylum, and public lands of the State of Texas be and the same are reserved from the operation of the laws for the sale of such lands, and shall be used and disposed of for the benefit " of the respective funds for which said lands are now sot apart as hereinafter prescribed.” The second section places these lands under the control of the land board.

In 1887, the Twentieth Legislature enacted a law under the following title: “An act to provide for the sale of all lands heretofore or hereafter surveyed and set apart for the benefit of the public free schools, the university, and the several asylums, and the lease of such lands and of the public lands of the State, to prevent the free use, occupancy, unlawful inclosure, or unlawful appropriation of such lands, and to prescribe and provide adequate penalties therefor.” Laws . 1887, p. 83.

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

Related

State v. Cemex Construction Materials South, LLC
350 S.W.3d 396 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011)
T. H. Mastin & Co. v. Kirby Lumber Co.
15 F. Supp. 429 (S.D. Texas, 1936)
Fort Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Ross
54 S.W.2d 561 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
State Ex Rel. Otto v. Field
241 P. 1027 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1925)
Hart v. Associated Oil Co.
261 S.W. 506 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Carothers v. Mills
233 S.W. 155 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Greene v. Robison
210 S.W. 498 (Texas Supreme Court, 1919)
Barnes v. State
170 S.W. 548 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Colquitt-Tigner Mining Co. v. Rogan
68 S.W. 154 (Texas Supreme Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 S.W. 1001, 94 Tex. 585, 1901 Tex. LEXIS 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schendell-v-rogan-tex-1901.