Barrett v. Kelly

Citations

• 31 Tex. 476

Syllabus

<p>A grant executed by the alcalde of Austin’s colony, the land lying above the Nacogdoches and San Antonio road, is not void for want of power in the officers, although the said road was the northern boundary of Austin’s colony ; that the land was within the jurisdiction of the officers who issued the grant has been settled in Hancock v. McKinney, 7 Tex., 348; Pyron v. Jackson, 11 Tex., 391; and Martin v. Parker, 26 Tex., 253.</p> <p>Where the owner of the junior title did not attack the older title for over twenty years, and then the attack was not by record evidence, but by parol, the objection should be considered as stale.</p> <p>There are three important eras in the jurisprudence of Texas: first, the laws of Mexico, which were in force until the revolution in 1836; second, the constitution of 1836, and the statutes introduced prior to 1840, together with the Mexican laws not thereby repealed; third, the common law introduced by the act of 20th of January, 1840. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 804, 978, Notes 396,418.)</p> <p>This common-law act enabled aliens to come to Texas with their household goods.</p> <p>The annexation of Texas to the United States in 1845 removed all objections to a citizen of the United States on account of alienage.</p> <p>Prior to annexation Texas might have forfeited the lands belonging to alien citizens, but after annexation no such right existed against citizens of the United States. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 43, Notes 153,159, 237.)</p> <p>By the common law an alien could not maintain an action to recover real property.</p> <p>An alien might acquire land, but he held it subject to the will of the government, and upon his death the property reverted to the government.</p>