¶1In this case it appears that defendant in error purchased the land after proof and certificate of three years’ occupancy, relying upon such certificate and paying full value for the land without notice of the fact of nonoccupancy alleged as a ground for canceling the sale. In refusing the application we think it proper to say that we hold that the defense of innocent purchaser under the certificate is good against the attack of the State upon the sale on the ground of nonoccupancy.
97 Tex. 520
State v. Hughes
Decided May 2, 1904
Texas Supreme Court · decided 1904-05-02
<p>School Land—Purchase—Nonoccupancy—Innocent Purchaser.</p> <p>An innocent purchaser from one buying school land from the State and who has received his certificate of proof of three years occupancy is protected against the attack of the State up'on the sale on ground of nonoccupancy. (P. 521.)</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1944
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1904-05-02
View the full empirical analysis of this case →