Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

11 Tex. Civ. App. 413

33 S.W 138

Ferguson v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 30, 1895

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1895-10-30

<p>1. Land Certificate — Inheritance Where Grant is Based on Mexican Law-Aliens.</p> <p>W. removed from the United States to Texas, then a part of Mexico, in 1831, and died here in 1834. After Texas became a Republic, it issued, on the application of her administrator, a certificate to lands which were patented in her name in. 1841. Held, that in the absence of proof to the contrary, it will be presumed that the certificate issued by virtue of the right thereto which W. had acquired under the Mexican colonization law, and that her heirship, as to the land, was to be determined by the laws anterior to the Constitution of the Republic, under which aliens could not inherit.</p> <p>2. Descent — Citizenship of Mexico — Evidence Insufficient.</p> <p>Evidence that one born in the United States of parents who were citizens thereof came to Texas, then a part of Mexico, with his widowed mother in 1831, left Texas in 1835, was married in Louisiana, and again lived in Texas in 1859 to 1863, does not show that he acquired citizenship in Mexico, and was not as to the Mexican law an alien at the date of his mother’s death in 1834.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1920

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1895-10-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

JAMES, Chief Justice.

¶2 In reference to the point made in the first paragraph of the motion for rehearing, — that Nancy Wright being entitled to but one league of land from the Mexican government, the grant by the Republic to her of a league and labor conclusively shows that the latter grant had no reference to her right acquired under the colonization laws of Mexico, — we are of opinion that such fact does not justify the conclusion contended for. Her right as a colonist in Mexico was to a headright as the head of a family, and the grant by the Republic was for such a headright, and it was natural for- the certificate to be for the quantity of land it allowed in such cases. The fact mentioned does not, in our opinion, affect the applicability of the rule in Hornsby v. Bacon

¶3 The motion will be overruled.

¶4 Overruled.

¶5 Writ of error refused.

/11/texcivapp/413 · .json · Public domain