Cases Argued and Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas (Volume 58) - Paperback

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Statement of the case. sequent purchaser, even though the property itself might be removed to another county; and that it was not necessary to record it in that county unless the mortgagor might also have removed there. In this case, although the engine and mill were, without the consent of Griffith and Wedge, removed into Anderson county, the mortgagor, Morrison, himself continued to reside in Henderson county. We are of opinion that the record in Henderson county was constructive notice to Matthews, and that the court erred in charging the jury that it was not such notice. III. If defendant Matthews rests his claim under the authority to sell given to Morrison by the letter to him from Griffith and Wedge, then he is in law chargeable with notice of its contents and of the extent of the power therein conferred. At most this was a power to sell for cash or its equivalent, and was not a power to barter or exchange for lands. Therefore the exchange for the house and lot in Palestine was without authority, and not binding on Griffith and Wedge. Keversed And Hkmanded. [Opinion delivered October 31, 1882.] 58 53 75 409 58 53 79 308 91 524, James S. Porter v. Geo. W. Chronistkb. (Case No. 1244.) Property.? The heirs of the wife of a colonist in Peters' colony, who with her husband emigrated to the colony in 1845, and who died in 1849, were, by reason of her emigration and settlement, entitled to the community interest of their mother in land appropriated by a certificate to her husband as a colonist under the act of January 21, 1850. Such interest could be enforced against a purchaser of the certificate from the husband after the death of the wife, who pro- cored a patent for the land to himself as such purchaser and assignee. 2. Bankrupt Sal...