Bacon & Bates v. Russell
Citations
- 57 Tex. 409
- 1882 Tex. LEXIS 161
Syllabus
<p>1. Practice in supreme court — Essential questions.— See this case for circumstances under which the supreme court, of its own motion, suggested and considered the question of the constitutionality of a special act of the legislature, constituting the basis of the title of both parties, and of the title on which the appellee, as plaintiff, had recovered in the lower court.</p> <p>2. Constitution op 1870 — Grants op land prohibited by.—Section 6, art. X, of the constitution of 1870 prohibited not only the direct grant of land, but also every step which could ultimate in a grant, to other than an actual settler. .</p> <p>8. Special act — Bounty.— The terms of the special act of February 19, 1873, granting Wm. J. Bussell a certificate for. six hundred and forty acres of land for his participation in the campaign against Bexar in 1835, would be satisfied by any participation in that campaign; but those only could claim the bounty granted by the act of December 21, 1837, who had rendered the specific services named in that act — those “ Who entered Bexar from the morning of the 5th to the 10th of December, 1835, and who actually took part in the reduction of the same.” Russell may have rendered services in the campaign against Bexar, and yet not have rendered the services entitling him to the bounty granted by the act of December 21,1837.</p> <p>4. Same.—The special act of February 19, 1873, was the inception and sole basis of Russell’s right to a certificate of six hundred and forty acres.</p> <p>5. Repeal op act op December 21, 1837 — Special act unconstitutional.— But were it otherwise, the effect of the constitution of 1870 was to repeal the act of December 21, 1837, and to place it beyond the power of the legislature to revive rights to land certificates, granted as a mere gratuity, and the rights lost by the failure of parties to apply for and receive the certificates. The special act under which Russell claims is unconstitutional.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding secondary meaning “by evidence that the mark has become associated in the mind of the public as identifying the source of the goods or services”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Stayton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.