Erp v. Robison

<p>1. —School Land—Premature Application to Purchase.</p> <p>Until a previous sale of school land had been officially canceled, a second application to purchase it was unauthorized and conferred no right, though the sale was cancelled after it was filed. (P. 145.)</p> <p>2. —Same—Porfeiture by Abandonment.</p> <p>Under the Act of April 19, 1901, Rev. Stats., 1911, art. 5424, abandonment of school land by the purchaser does not, ipso facto, work a forfeiture, and the land is not subject to resale until such forfeiture has been officially declared. Adams v. Terrell, 101 Texas, 331, approved and followed. (Pp. 145, 146.)</p> <p>3. —School Land—Appraised Value.</p> <p>A sale of school land at less than the value at which it was appraised at the time the rights of the purchaser attached was invalid. (P. 146.)</p> <p>4. —Same—Case Stated.</p> <p>A purchaser having abandoned the school land bought, and another having applied to purchase it at the value as then appraised, it was subsequently appraised at a higher price. Thereafter the first sale was forfeited for abandonment. A subsequent sale to the second applicant at the original appraisement was invalid. His application conferred no right when made, because the original' sale had not been cancelled; nor after the cancellation, because it was then at less than the appraised price. (Pp. 144-147.)</p> <p>5. —School Land—Judgment—Limitation.</p> <p>A judgment in an action between adverse claimants of the right to purchase school land, holding the sale to one valid as against his adversary because the latter had not brought suit for the land within one year from the date of its award to the other, as required by the Act of March 16, 1905 (Rev. Stats., 1911, arts. 5458, 5459), was not binding on the State. The party prevailing therein, on the sale to him being cancelled by the Land Commissioner as one illegally made, could not maintain action for mandamus to require the Commissioner to reinstate him on the ground that'the validity of his purchase had been determined by his judgment against the adverse claimant. (Pp. 146, 147.)</p> <p>6.—Same.</p> <p>A claimant of school land defeated, the action of an adverse claimant therefor against him on the ground that, though his own purchase was invalid against the State, his adversary was barred of his action by limitation (Rev. Stats., 1911, arts. 5458, 5459). Held that this judgment gave him no right, as against the State’s action in cancelling his own purchase for invalidity, to assert the title of the adverse purchaser as one acquired by him -under his judgment. That judgment determined such title to be invalidated by limitation. (Pp. 146, 147.)</p>